| Critical Reasoning Butler: April 2025 |
| April 25 | CR 1 | CR 2 |
_______________________________
CR 1 A soccer league is divided into a junior and a senior division, separated not by age but by a player’s skill level. This year, to determine the division for which an aspirant is best qualified, the league held a week-long trial, after which coach A and coach B selected players. Coach A nominated sixteen of the forty players for the senior league. Amongst Coach B’s nominations for the senior division were four players not nominated by Coach A. Therefore, there will be twenty players in the senior division.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest basis for the conclusion above to be warranted?
(A) To be selected for the senior division, a player need only be nominated by one of the two coaches.
(B) Of the sixteen players nominated by the coach A, coach B nominated more than half to play in the senior division.
(C) All of the players not assigned to the senior division by both coaches were assigned to the junior division.
(D) Of those chosen by both coaches to play in the senior division all will end up playing in the senior league.
(E) The four players that Coach B but not Coach A selected for the senior division played the previous year in that division.
_______________________________
CR 2 The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator defended himself: "When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator. Moreover, immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe."
This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?
(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
(C) It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.
(D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.
(E) It confuses basic financial information with legal claims.