PrepTest 118

Incorrect. This answer would be correct if the Editorial showed that one plan to achieve a goal wouldn't work and concluded that any plan to do so would fail. However, here, there's no single plan put forward, just a general one, and so this answer doesn't correctly describe the flawed reasoning—especially since the Editorial doesn't actually address the Economic Advisor's reasoning!

Incorrect. The Editorial is arguing against a proposal, not for it. Additionally, there's no playing on fears—saying that someone's advice is untrustworthy isn't the same as claiming that implementing the advice would lead to horrific outcomes.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Economic advisor: By cutting government waste, we can reduce taxes without cutting services.

Editorial: The Advisor was convicted of embezzlement, so his advice must be wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is 100% reliant on attacking the Premier for his past as an embezzler without addressing his argument at all. No reason is presented for dismissing his advice other than that he was convicted of a crime. This is one of the clearer attack on the person flaws on the exam, so let's find an answer that brings up this flawed method of reasoning.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is the generic Attacking the Person flaw answer. The Editorial goes after the Advisor's background, not the logic of his argument. This is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Each answer choice here describes a different flaw. For Errors in Reasoning questions, it's important to know not only how to identify the flaw in the stimulus, but also what the answers describing the common flaws sound like!

Incorrect. This answer describes an Absence of Evidence flaw. The Editorial doesn't point out that the Advisor lacks evidence, so this flaw isn't present.

Incorrect. This answer describes a circular argument. However, the conclusion is distinct from the premises, so this answer is wrong.