Bunuel
Herbalist: Many of customers find that their physical coordination improves after drinking juice containing certain herbs. A few doctors assert that the herbs are potentially harmful, but doctors are always trying to maintain a monopoly over medical therapies. So there is no reason not to try my herb juice.
The reasoning in the herbalist’s argument is flawed because the argument
(A) attempts to force acceptance of a claim by inducing fear of the consequences of rejecting that claim
(B) bases a conclusion on claims that are inconsistent with each other
(C) rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself
(D) relies on evidence presented in terms that presuppose the truth if the claim for which the evidence is offered
(E) mistakes the observation that one thing happens after another for proof that the second thing is the result of the first
So the Herbalist attacks the Doctors rather than putting forth worthy points as to why the Doctors are wrong.
(A) attempts to force acceptance of a claim by inducing fear of the consequences of rejecting that claim : Herbalist attacks the Doctors , does not induce fear by any means
INCORRECT.(B)bases a conclusion on claims that are inconsistent with each other: Clearly not true.The Herbalist does not make two or more claims that are inconsistent with each other, to arrive at the conclusion
INCORRECT.(C)rejects a claim by attacking the proponents of the claim rather than addressing the claim itself : Exactly what the Herbalist does
CORRECT.(D) relies on evidence presented in terms that presuppose the truth if the claim for which the evidence is offered : NO evidence has been offered in the Argument,hence cannot be the flaw
INCORRECT.(E)mistakes the observation that one thing happens after another for proof that the second thing is the result of the first : There aren't any sequence of events in the argument, hence cannot be the flaw
INCORRECT.Hope it's clear.