Self-study
Mr. ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ████████████ ███ ███ ████████ █ █████ ███ █ █████████ █████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ██ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ███ █ █████████ █ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that either Ms. Chan or her colleague must not be telling the truth. Ms. Chan said that she retired from Quad Cities corporation. Her colleague said that Ms. Chan will be gone for much of next year on business trips and is working harder than she has ever worked before. To the author, what the colleague describes about Ms. Chan does not sound like “retirement.”
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author interprets “retired from Quad Cities Corporation” as if it means Ms. Chan retired from working generally. But this overlooks the reasonable possibility that it simply means retired from working at that specific company. If this is what the phrase means, then both Ms. Chan and her colleague could be telling the truth.
24.
Mr. Nance's reasoning is flawed ███████ ██
a
is based in ████ ██ ███████
The author does not argue that something is true because he heard someone say that it is true. Rather, the author mistakenly believes what each person said is contradictory.
b
criticizes Ms. Chan ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ████
The author does not attack Ms. Chan’s background, character, or behavior. He simply believes what she said contradicts what her colleague said about her.
c
draws a conclusion █████ ██ █████████ ████████
The author’s conclusion is based in part on the the language “retired from Quad Cities Corporation.” The author thinks this means Ms. Chan retired from working completely. But this language is equivocal because it could also mean that she retired only from that specific company.
d
fails to consider ████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ███
There’s no indication that what the colleague said was based on what Ms. Chan said to the colleague. In any case, even if Ms. Chan lied to the colleague, that doesn’t undermine the conclusion that Ms. Chan or the colleague must not be telling the truth.
e
fails to infer ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ████ █████ ███████
There’s no reason the author should have concluded that Ms. Chan is of superior character. The failure to make this inference does not help show why both Ms. Chan and her colleague might be telling the truth.