PrepTest 129

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Question

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
C: Research advances humanity and improves a professor's teaching, so they should be allowed paid research leave.

D: Even if research is good, why should we pay for it?

Answer Anticipation:
Well, David, because it improves a professor's teaching—that's why a university should dedicate resources to allowing professors to take a research leave.

David's rebuttal here asks a question that Carla already answered, and the correct answer should reflect that.

Answer Explanation:
Carla already provided a reason that universities should pay for teachers to go on paid leave for research—it improves their teaching, which benefits the university. David ignores a significant part of Carla's statement that answers his question, and so his challenge question is flawed.

Key Takeaway:
When there's a second speaker rebutting an argument from a first speaker, make sure the second speaker is actually addressing the entirety and actuality of the first speaker. Frequently, the second speaker will misconstrue, mischaracterize, or ignore portions of the first argument, which makes the rebuttal flawed.

Incorrect. While David certainly believes that professors should be teaching, and that's more of a priority than doing research, he doesn't discuss any other functions, and so he may believe that there are non-teaching/research functions that professors should engage in.

Incorrect. It's unclear whose "limited resources" David is mentioning. It's possible that he's a member of the university administration and he's discussing the school's limited resources, not tax dollars.

Incorrect. David's challenge to Carla's statement is specifically about teachers taking time off from teaching to perform research, so he may believe there's other reasons to take a paid leave of absence (and, presumably, he'd be equally wary of them!).

Incorrect. Neither speaker discusses vacations, so this answer is out of scope.