#15 - Magazine article: The Environmental Commissioner's new

[mcdonom4]

Hello!

I'm having some trouble understanding why (C) is the correct answer. The stimulus does talk negatively about the author of the proposal, the Environmental Commissioner, but then states "unfortunately we discovered that these proposals are virtually identical to those issued three months ago by Tarsque Inc." which makes me think that the author's objection doesn't just stem from the source, but from the content as well. Could you please explain this for me?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Don't fall for the trap, mcdonom4! What do we know about the content of the proposals, other than that the two are virtually identical? The answer is nothing - we have no idea what they say. Our author does nothing to discredit the content of either the Commissioner's new proposals or those advanced previously by the company, but instead focuses entirely on who made the proposals. A big polluter made them (and the Commissioner later adopted them or copied them or, perhaps, came up with them on his own and the similarity is just a coincidence), so they must not be worth talking about! That's what this is all about. The rest, comparing the proposals to each other without any discussion of their substance, is just a distraction.

Ask yourself this question: what's wrong with the proposals? Answer based solely on the text, with no outside info. You can't say it's because the content is bad, because the text never tells us about the context. What else can you come up with?

If you come up with support for anything other than "a polluting company issued them", let us know! Otherwise, your answer will have to be C, and it should be clearer to you why that's so.

I hope that helps!

[mcdonom4]

Ah, not the trap!!

Thank you so much Adam, that really clears it up. Especially if I ask what's actually wrong or what I actually know about the proposal.

[gen2871]

source: Tsarque Inc.'s polluting has marked it as an environmental nightmare ---- attacking the source, right?

C. dismiss the proposal because of their source rather than because of their substance, the substance meaning content? Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Boom! You got it, gen! The problem is that the author attacked the author based on who they are and how they behave, rather than addressing the merits of the proposals. Good job!

[gen2871]

Oh yeah!! Thank you, Adam!

[SwanQueen]

Hello,

Why is (A) incorrect?

Thanks in advance!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi SwanQueen!

As Adam explains above, you have to answer this question based solely on what is in the argument in the stimulus. The argument says that the two texts are similar ("virtually identical"), but never says that one text is influenced by the other. (This is also not an unstated assumption of the argument because the conclusion does not rely on one text having influenced the other.) Since it didn't happen in the argument, answer choice (A) cannot describe a flaw in the argument. The magazine article's conclusion is based solely on the source of the proposal, making this a classic source argument flaw, as described in answer choice (C).

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey