- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:43 am
#36951
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
The argument presented in this stimulus is as follows: Since there are many instances of bribery among
members of the Wagston staff, and Wagston is a member of the board, the entire board must be corrupt
and should therefore be replaced.
The argument is flawed, because it does not establish that Wagston is corrupt based on the fact that some
members of his staff are, and does not logically establish that the problems in Wagston’s staff extend to
the entire board.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The argument inappropriately attributes the
actions of some members of Wagston’s staff, to the entire board, without giving any logical justification
for this leap.
Answer choice (B): Since the possibility that Wagston’s staff bribed more people is not harmful to the
argument, this choice cannot represent a flaw.
Answer choice (C): There is no need to specify the relationship between two concepts that are related by
definition. Bribery is always a form of corruption, so this choice is wrong.
Answer choice (D): The argument does overgeneralize; however, it does not do so to the point of arguing
that every single staff member is corrupt. Furthermore, the argumentative strategy is to generalize from
Wagston’s staff to the entire board, not just within Wagston’s staff.
Answer choice (E): Since board’s alleged corruption is in fact a substantive issue in the argument, it is
not a flaw to focus on that aspect of character. Furthermore, a character attack involves the use of “bad
character” as an avoidance strategy in which the author sidesteps the actual point, issue, or argument. In
this instance, that is not the case.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
The argument presented in this stimulus is as follows: Since there are many instances of bribery among
members of the Wagston staff, and Wagston is a member of the board, the entire board must be corrupt
and should therefore be replaced.
The argument is flawed, because it does not establish that Wagston is corrupt based on the fact that some
members of his staff are, and does not logically establish that the problems in Wagston’s staff extend to
the entire board.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The argument inappropriately attributes the
actions of some members of Wagston’s staff, to the entire board, without giving any logical justification
for this leap.
Answer choice (B): Since the possibility that Wagston’s staff bribed more people is not harmful to the
argument, this choice cannot represent a flaw.
Answer choice (C): There is no need to specify the relationship between two concepts that are related by
definition. Bribery is always a form of corruption, so this choice is wrong.
Answer choice (D): The argument does overgeneralize; however, it does not do so to the point of arguing
that every single staff member is corrupt. Furthermore, the argumentative strategy is to generalize from
Wagston’s staff to the entire board, not just within Wagston’s staff.
Answer choice (E): Since board’s alleged corruption is in fact a substantive issue in the argument, it is
not a flaw to focus on that aspect of character. Furthermore, a character attack involves the use of “bad
character” as an avoidance strategy in which the author sidesteps the actual point, issue, or argument. In
this instance, that is not the case.
