#14 - Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount of

[freddythepup]

Hi,

For this question, can you please explain this more in depth? I chose C and then D as the right answer but why does A work better?

At first I thought C was the right answer because I thought the stimulus is repeating one claim for a conclusion. But then I picked D my second try because I thought the stimulus had mentioned that the new process will probably be cost more, so the new process will definitely cost more for the company. I thought this was what D was saying.

I didn't pick A on both tries because I thought I didn't see the evidence in the stimulus as only "some of the factors". Can you please explain why A is the correct answer? Thanks.

[Brook Miscoski]

Freddy,

You were correct to evaluate this in terms of commonly repeated flaws. In this case, the stimulus gives you a clue you should focus on in choosing an answer.

The stimulus is two-part, and the Supervisor points out that the Plant Manager has failed to account for fuel efficiency in his analysis of cost. The Supervisor is telling you that the Plant Manager has failed to consider some of the available evidence.

(A) This is the right answer--the Supervisor points out that the Plant Manager failed to consider some factors.
(B) There was no "appeal to authority." The Manager and Supervisor have authority, but they are not appealing to it.
(C) There is no circular reasoning in the stimulus. An argument that considers multiple pieces of evidence is unlikely to involve circular reasoning.
(D) There is no support in the stimulus for believing that the evidence is only "probably true." The problem is not that some of the evidence might be false, it is that some of the evidence might be missing.
(E) There is no problem with relevance. All the discussion is relevant, it is just that some evidence might be missing.

[bonnie_a]

Hello, I have one question about questions where we are given responses from two different speakers and have to find flaws with one of their arguments. Based on the previous post in this thread, I noticed we need to look at how the second speaker responds to the first and figure out what's wrong with the first speaker's argument from there. In answering this question, I only focused on the first speaker's argument and found what was wrong with it rather than looking at how the second speaker reacted to the argument and then identifying its flaw. So, my main question is: for a question that involves two speakers and asks what's wrong with one of their arguments, am I supposed to look at how one speaker responds to the other and use it to recognize a flaw? Thank you so much!

[Beatrice Brown]

Hi Bonnie! Thanks for your great question

It's not always necessary to look at how the other speaker responds in determining the flaw of one speaker's argument! However, this will often help you identify the flaw in the speaker's argument, since the other speaker will usually reply in a way that points out that speaker's flaw

For this question, you could certainly determine the flaw in the plant manager's argument by just examining his argument in isolation. Looking at just his argument, we can prephrase the following flaw: the plant manager solely focuses on the costs of the new process without looking at potential benefits, yet he makes a conclusion about the net effect, which should consider both the benefits and costs of a certain approach. This is the flaw that answer choice (A) points out, making it the correct answer.

The supervisor actually points out this same flaw when he says that he disagrees about "one point" and explains that the new process would be extremely fuel-efficient. So looking at the supervisor's argument would be helpful in determining the flaw in the plant manager's argument, but it is not necessary to do so.

To sum up, while looking at the other speaker's argument can be helpful in determining the flaw in one speaker's argument, doing so isn't strictly necessary. Here, we can definitely identify the flaw in the plant manager's argument without considering the supervisor's reply.

This was a great question, and I hope this helps! Please let me know if you have any other questions.