Self-study
Conclusion Joshi is clearly letting campaign contributions influence his vote in city council. ███ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████████ ████ █████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ███████████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Joshi’s vote is being influenced by campaign contributions. This is based on the fact that Joshi’s re-election campaign has received more money from property developers than any other city councilor’s campaign. In addition, Joshi’s voting record favors property developers’ interest more than does the voting record of any other city councilor.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that Joshi’s favorable voting record for the property developers is a result of campaign contributions from the developers. But we don’t know which came first. It’s possible the developers contribute to Joshi because of Joshi’s votes. This opens the possibility that Joshi’s votes aren’t influenced by the contributions; he might be voting favorably to the developers for other reasons.
9.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
takes for granted ████ ███████ ███████ ██████ ████████ █████████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██████ ███ █████ ██████
The author doesn’t argue that Joshi is being influenced by campaign contributions because his votes occurred after the contributions. (In fact, we don’t know whether the votes occurred after the contributions.)
b
confuses one thing's █████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ █████
The argument isn’t based on conditional reasoning, so there is no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.
c
makes a moral ████████ ████ ████ █ ███████ ████████ ███ ██ █████████
The conclusion is not a moral judgment. A claim that someone is influenced by campaign contributions is simply a claim about cause and effect. It doesn’t involve a moral judgment.
d
presumes that one █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██
The author assumes that the contributions are a cause of Joshi’s votes that are favorable to property developers, but these contributions could be a result of Joshi’s votes. Maybe Joshi voted favorably first, and the contributions followed.
e
has a conclusion ████ ██ ██████ █ ███████████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ ████████
(E) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion — that contributions influence Joshi’s vote — isn’t restated in the premises. None of the premises assert that Joshi’s vote is affected by contributions.