Editorial: The premiers economic advisor assures her that with the

Question

Editorial: The premier’s economic advisor assures her that with the elimination of wasteful spending the goal of reducing taxes while not significantly decreasing government services can be met. But the premier should not listen to this advisor, who in his youth was convicted of embezzlement. Surely his economic advice is as untrustworthy as he is himself, and so the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in government services.

Which one of the following is a questionable argumentative strategy employed in the editorial’s argument?

(A) rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a particular implementation of the proposal is likely to fail

(B) trying to win support for a proposal by playing on people’s fears of what could happen otherwise

(C) criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself

(D) taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining the claim

(E) presupposing what it sets out to establish

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

ajay0520 · Answer

here question is asking about how is the editor trying to defend his stand that economic advisor should not be trusted? 
if we go through paragraph we can see that advisor is proposing a plan and the editor rather than finding flaw in current plan, is rather involved in showing this guy cant be trusted because of his history. so if we go through answers we can see  Option c  does exactly the same.

NextstopISB · Answer

Step 1: Identify the argument 
The editorial argues that the premier should not trust her economic advisor’s claim that taxes can be reduced without significantly decreasing government services. The reason given is that the advisor was convicted of embezzlement in his youth.

Step 2: Identify the flaw 
Instead of evaluating the advisor’s economic argument, the editorial attacks the advisor’s character (his past conviction). This is a personal attack rather than a logical refutation of the claim itself.

Step 3: Match with the answer choices

(A) Rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a particular implementation of the proposal is likely to fail. 
- The argument does not focus on a specific implementation failing but instead attacks the advisor’s credibility. (Incorrect)

(B) Trying to win support for a proposal by playing on people’s fears of what could happen otherwise. 
- The argument does not appeal to fear; it attacks the advisor’s trustworthiness. (Incorrect)

(C) Criticizing the source of a claim rather than examining the claim itself. 
- The editorial dismisses the advisor’s economic advice solely based on his past rather than evaluating his actual argument. This is a classic ad hominem fallacy. (Correct)

(D) Taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining the claim. 
- The argument does not rely on a lack of evidence; it dismisses the claim based on the person making it. (Incorrect)

(E) Presupposing what it sets out to establish. 
- The argument does not assume its conclusion; it attacks the source of the argument instead. (Incorrect)

Step 4: Conclusion 
The best answer is (C) because the argument attacks the advisor’s character rather than addressing the validity of his economic claim.

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

As with all "Flaw in the Reasoning" questions, you must closely examine the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. In this argument, the editorial concludes that the advice of the economic advisor is untrustworthy and “the premier should discard any hope of reducing taxes without a significant decrease in government services.” What support is offered for this position? Is a discussion of taxation issued presented? Is a discussion of the cost of government service provided? Is the position of the economic advisor dissected? No. According to the editorial, the only reason for ignoring the economic advisor’s advice is that the advisor was convicted in his youth of embezzlement. This fact has no bearing on the argument made by the advisor, and focuses instead on attacking the person making the argument. This is a classic Source or ad hominem argument, and you should immediately seek an answer choice that reflects this fact.

Answer choice (A): A proposal is not rejected in the stimulus; rather, a goal is advocated by the advisor and then the author questions whether that goal can be met by examining the background of the advisor. There is no discussion of a “particular implementation” that is likely to fail.

Answer choice (B): This answer fails the Fact Test because there is no discussion of “what could happen otherwise” and no discussion of people’s fears.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer.  The answer is a perfect description of a Source argument.

Answer choice (D): This answer describes an evidence error in which a lack of evidence for a position is considered to hurt the claim. In the argument, the author improperly used evidence about the advisor, and this mistake is the error in the argument. Even though this introduced a flaw into the argument, from the author’s perspective this was an attempt to use evidence against a position to hurt the position. The editorial did not state or indicate that there was a lack of evidence when forming the conclusion. Put simply, the editor thought he had a reason that undermined the claim; no argument was made that there was a lack of evidence.

Answer choice (E): This answer describes Circular Reasoning. But, because the argument in the stimulus gives reasons for its position (albeit weak ones), the argument is not circular.

Editorial: The premiers economic advisor assures her that with the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Editorial: The premiers economic advisor assures her that with the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards