Argument: The politician claims that economists are wrong to say consumer prices have averaged less than 3% increase over the last year.
Evidence: the prices of gasoline, auto insurance, newspapers, propane, and bread have increased significantly.
We can pre-think that he basis his reasoning on a few items and assumes the items he mentioned represent all consumer prices. However, there can be more items that he hasn't mentioned that could overall bring the consumer prices average increase to be less than 3%.
A. impugns the character of the economists rather than addressing their arguments
❌ He doesn’t attack their character, just says they "haven't shopped anywhere recently".
B. fails to show that the economists mentioned are not experts in the area of consumer prices
❌ Irrelevant. He’s not questioning their expertise, he’s disputing their numbers and countering their conclusion by presenting some evidence.
C. mistakenly infers that something is not true from the claim that it has not been shown to be so
❌ The politician isn't inferring something is untrue because it hasn't been proven; rather, they're offering what they consider to be contradictory evidence.
D. uses evidence drawn from a small sample that may well be unrepresentative
✅
Aligns with our pre-thinking. The politician generalizes from his personal shopping experiences, which is a small and possibly biased sample, rather than considering the whole range of consumer goods and services. Keep.
E. attempts to persuade by making an emotional appeal
❌ There’s no emotional argument here - eliminate.
Correct Answer: D