This editorial cannot be a good argument because it is barely

Question

This editorial cannot be a good argument because it is barely literate. Run-on sentences, slang, and perfectly dreadful grammar appear regularly throughout. Anything that poorly written cannot be making very much sense.

Which of the following identifies an assumption in the argument above?

(A) This editorial was written by someone other than the usual editor.

(B) Generally speaking, very few editorials are poor in style or grammar.

(C) The language of an argument is indicative of its validity.

(D) Generally speaking, the majority of editorials are poor in style and grammar.

(E) The author of the editorial purposely uses poor grammar to disguise what he knows is a bad argument.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

kb26 · Answer

poorly written --> not a good argument.

So, the assumption will related writing form to argument's strength which is given by option C.

A and E are not related to the argument.

B and D are general statement. out of scope.

vasu1104 · Answer

there are run-on sentences, slang, and perfectly dreadful grammar appear regularly throughout.
anything poorly written cant be making very much sense.
argument is poorly written.

conclusion= editorial cant be good argument.

premise is talking about the language with which it was written and how bad it is and concluded that editorial cant be good argument.
so for argument to be good language plays big part.

A who cares? reject.
B it could be one of them then. but we need assumption. this is not. out.
C perfect. as i said above, language must be playing some role in defining argument and this choice tells us that exactly. keep.
D then dont raise the que and just let it be. out.
E he must be having some internal problem to do this type of ****. hope he recovers well. out.

choice C

dhart · Answer

C the language, style of the editorial inidcates its valifdity

Vivek1707 · Answer

A. Who wrote the editorial doesn't matter to the argument.
B. The quality of other editorials doesn't affect whether this editorial makes sense.
C. Yes this works. The argument assumes that poor language/grammar means poor reasoning. Without this assumption, the editorial could be badly written but still contain a strong argument.
D. Whether most editorials are poorly written is irrelevant.
E. The argument doesn't depend on the author intentionally using bad grammar.

SwethaReddyL · Answer

(A) This editorial was written by someone other than the usual editor. - this is irrelevant to the argument

(B) Generally speaking, very few editorials are poor in style or grammar. - that's not filling the gap in the argument

(C) The language of an argument is indicative of its validity. - this is necessary as the negation of it breaks the conclusion

(D) Generally speaking, the majority of editorials are poor in style and grammar. - again, irrelevent

(E) The author of the editorial purposely uses poor grammar to disguise what he knows is a bad argument. - we know/assume nothing of the author

Correct answer: option C

Thanks,
Swetha

counterclash1 · Answer

Correct Answer: (C)

Argument Structure:
- Premise: The editorial has terrible grammar, slang, and run-on sentences.
- Conclusion: The editorial cannot be a good argument.

The Logical Gap:
The author conflates style (grammar/literacy) with substance (logical validity).

Testing (C) via Negation:
- Negation: The language of an argument is NOT indicative of its validity.
- Impact: If the phrasing and grammar tell us nothing about whether an argument 
 is valid, then bad grammar cannot prove an argument is bad. The conclusion collapses.

Therefore, (C) is the required assumption.

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

C

The author's claim that the editorial's argument is no good because it is poorly written depends on the assumption that an argument's validity is related to its use of language. After all, if an argument's language didn't indicate its validity, the author's argument wouldn't make any sense at all.

(A)'s not assumed because the argument doesn't concern who's to blame for the bad editorial. (B) and (D) fail because the argument addresses this editorial only, so there's nothing assumed about what happens generally. And (E) goes too far: The author needn't assume that the writer deliberately wrote badly to hide a bad argument, just that, as (C) says, the poor writing indicates a poor argument.

This editorial cannot be a good argument because it is barely

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

­This editorial cannot be a good argument because it is barely

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

This editorial cannot be a good argument because it is barely