Logical reasoning PrepTest 142 · Section 1 · Question 5

Incorrect. The argument establishes neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for being harmful (that seems a weird thing to have either a sufficient or necessary condition for).

Incorrect. This answer describes one version of an absence of evidence flaw. However, first, the Critic concludes something is false, not that something is true. And that's not based on the opposing point lacking a good argument—in fact, the Critic concedes that Fillmore does have evidence supporting her viewpoint.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Fillmore (TV executive) Ð Watching TV isn't bad for young children
Concession Ð Fillmore is right to say that kids can learn good things from TV
Rebuttal Ð Fillmore benefits from selling TVs
Conclusion Ð We should reject Fillmore's argument

Answer Anticipation:
The Critic's argument starts at the pivot. Before that, we get Fillmore's argument and a concession made by the Critic to Fillmore's viewpoint.

After the pivot, the Critic tells us to reject Fillmore's argument. Why? Because Fillmore is biased—she stands to benefit from her argument.

The Critic doesn't address Fillmore's argument—in fact, when he does, it's to highlight a reason that Fillmore might be right. Instead, the Critic focuses on a biased motive behind Fillmore's argument. Ignoring the argument to attack the person making it? That's an ad hominem flaw.

Answer Explanation:
The Critic doesn't address the substance of Fillmore's argument, instead rejecting it because she stands to benefit from her argument, so this answer reflects the ad hominem flaw present in the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument only questions the motives behind an opposing point's argument, it's committing an ad hominem flaw.

Incorrect. Fillmore is someone with questionable authority over the subject matter of childhood development. However, the argument doesn't rely on Fillmore's views—the argument rejects her views.

Incorrect. Nothing in the Critic's argument contradicts anything else in his argument. In fact, there's only a single premise so it'd be hard for it to be contradictory.