PrepTest 144

Incorrect. While the claims might not prove the conclusions, there's nothing about the Columnist's statements that contradict each other. GIAPS being a tool doesn't contradict that it can't be responsible for a bad presentation, or that the responsibility is with those using the tool.

Incorrect. The Columnist never discusses good presentations, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The Columnist doesn't endorse the product.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
IDE: GIAPS has an autopresentation wizard and simple templates, so it leads to ineffective presentations.
Columnist: It's a tool, so it can't be responsible for bad presentations, so the people using it must be responsible, so the IDE's argument is absurd.

Answer Anticipation:
The stem asks us to find an error in the Columnist's reasoning, and that argument has a few intermediate conclusions in it, so we should check each of them for a gap.

First, is the fact that GIAPS is a tool enough to prove it can't be responsible for a bad presentation? Not at all. Maybe it's a bad tool, or it doesn't work well, or the templates are set up so that people can't make a good presentation. There's a gap here that could be reflected in the correct answer.

Next, even if it's not responsible for a bad presentation, does that make the people using it responsible? It's hard to see how someone else who isn't involved could be responsible, but we suppose it's possible. Maybe the presentation is bad not because of the person making it, but because the person assigning it didn't provide enough guidance. This seems less likely to be the correct answer, but still worth anticipating.

Finally, if the person making the presentation is responsible, does that prove that the IDE's argument is absurd? Well, it might prove they're wrong, but "absurd" seems a bit strong. That said, it's hard to see what the assumption here would be, or how a correct answer would be framed, so this answer is even less likely.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the gap in the first step of the Columnist's argument. There, she uses GIAPS being a tool to support that it can't be responsible for a bad presentation, ignoring this possibility—that it is a bad tool. If it doesn't function well, then it could be responsible for a bad presentation instead of the person using it.

Key Takeaway:
When a question asks you to address a flaw and the argument has an intermediate conclusion or two, check each "step" of the argument for a gap in reasoning. Any jump can end up being referred to in a correct answer.

Incorrect. The Columnist addresses the argument of the IDE—she doesn't call his capabilities or motives into question or call him a hypocrite. There's no ad hominem flaw here.