Please help me with below Two CRs. I couldn’t find the correct explanation for acutal OA for these questions.
1. A gas tax of one cent per gallon would raise one billion dollars per year at current consumption rates. Since a tax of fifty cents per gallon would therefore raise fifty billion dollars per year, it seems a perfect way to deal with the federal budget deficit. This tax would have the additional advantage that the resulting drop in the demand for gasoline would be ecologically sound and would keep our country from being too dependent on foreign oil producers.
Which one of the following most clearly identifies an error in the authorâs reasoning?
(A) The author cites irrelevant data.
(B) The author relies on incorrect current consumption figures.
(C) The author makes incompatible assumptions.
(D) The author mistakes an effect for a cause.
(E) The author appeals to conscience rather than reason
OA IS C
2. Alice: Quotas on automobile imports to the United States should be eliminated. Then domestic producers would have to compete directly with Japanese manufacturers and would be forced to produce higher-quality cars. Such competition would be good for consumers.
David: You fail to realize, Alice, that quotas on automobile imports are pervasive worldwide. Since German, Britain, and France have quotas, so should the United States.
Which one of the following most accurately characterizes Davidâs response to Aliceâs statement ?
(A) David falsely accuses Alice of contradicting herself.
(B) David unfairly directs his argument against Alice personally.
(C) David uncovers a hidden assumption underlying Aliceâs position.
(D) David takes a position that is similar to the one Alice has taken.
(E) David fails to address the reasons Alice cites in favour of her conclusion.
OA is E
The first one has already been discussed here – http://www.aristotleprep.com/f…..soning/cr4
In the 2nd argument, David attacks Aliceâs recommendation for dropping quotas by pointing out that lots of countries have such quotas, so the U.S. should have them too. Hopefully your response to this irrelevant bit of nonsense was âHuh? So what? Whatâs your point, David?â
How does David address Aliceâs argument that direct competition ultimately benefits the consumer, the reason she suggests dropping quotas? He doesnâtâhe sidesteps Aliceâs point and instead advances his own reason in favor of quotas. (E) correctly characterizes Davidâs lame reply.
(A) David doesnât accuse Alice of self-contradiction; he merely points out that she has overlooked an important fact, a fact which he believes weakens her conclusion.
(B) Donât be fooled; there is no personal attack here. Saying âyou fail to realizeâ isnât a personal attack on Aliceâitâs an attack on her argument.
(C) is a little trickier, but David isnât pointing out that Alice assumes that other countries donât have quotas (and indeed her argument need make no such assumption). His point is that she has overlooked the question of other countriesâ quotas entirely.
(D) should have been the easiest choice to kill: clearly, from his first four words alone, David is disagreeing with Alice.
Most Users Ever Online: 42
Currently Browsing this Page:
Team Aristotle: 32
Guest Posters: 227
Newest Members: jgulati, shiladitya, kb24, rishabh3057, sac_goel, username123, firstname.lastname@example.org, gokul ram . t, ojeswilanka, harpreetkg
Administrators: admin (10)