Logical reasoning PrepTest 116 · Section 2 · Question 9

Incorrect. The Activist's rebuttal deals with [s]uch explanations" as offered by the employers. When referring directly back to the opposing argument, it would be hard to create a straw man.

Incorrect. The Activist's argument exists outside of the behavior of employees. To her, it doesn't matter how they behave—these are invasions of privacy.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of past moral standards, or a discussion of morality at all. It might be implied in appealing to some right to privacy, but this answer isn't describing the argument the Activist is making.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Employers offer explanations for their invasions of employee privacy, but those explanations are self—serving, so they can't justify the action.

Answer Anticipation:
The Activist rebuts the justifications made by the employers. Does she discuss their reasons themselves? Nope—she goes after the bias/motives behind the actions—they're made for self—serving reasons. Throwing an argument out based on the motives/biases of those making it is flawed reasoning—a version of an attack on the person.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the rebuttal made by the Activist. The employers explain their surveillance by saying it keeps their employees doing a good job. Instead of addressing that, the Activist throws out their argument by questioning the motives behind it, calling them self—serving." In ignoring the argument and going after the motives of those making the argument, the Activist's rebuttal is flawed.

Key Takeaway:
There are a few variations of the Attacking the Person flaw, but they all have one thing in common—they ignore the argument made and address something about the person making it. Whether it's an accusation of hypocrisy, or bias, or just calling them a name, focusing on the person is a flawed way to rebut an argument.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about [s]uch explanations, so it's talking about the same explanations as the premise. If the conclusion were about all explanations instead of just the ones mentioned in the premise, then this answer might be a consideration.