Self-study
Support The railway authority inspector who recently thoroughly checked the tracks testified that they were in good condition. █████ █████ ███ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ██████████
Method of Reasoning
The argument concludes that we should doubt a claim that is contradicted by an unbiased source with direct knowledge. The reporter claimed that the railroad tracks were in poor condition, whereas the inspector claimed they were in good condition. Because the inspector is unbiased, our author thinks the reporter’s competing claim isn’t credible.
5.
The reasoning in the argument █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████
a
My pottery instructor ████ ████ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ █████ █████████████████ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ████ █████████ ██ █ ████ ████████ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ████████ █ ██ ███████ █ ███ ███ ██████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ███
Mismatched conclusion and premises. (A) concludes that an expert is correct, whereas the stimulus concludes that a non-expert is incorrect. (Because an unbiased expert disagrees.) There’s no less credible source to doubt in (A), unlike the stimulus.
b
Gardner, a noted ██████████████ ███ ███ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ████████ █████ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ ████ █████ ████████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████████ ███ █████ ██████████
(B) concludes that we should doubt a claim that is contradicted by an unbiased source with direct knowledge. Penwick found bones that he claims are dinosaur bones. But paleontologist Gardner says, after examination, that they can’t be dinosaur bones. Since Gardner is unbiased, we should doubt Penwick. This parallels the stimulus.
c
The engineer hired ██ ███ ███████ ████ █████████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ███ ███ █████ ███ ██████ █ █████ ███████████ █████████ █████ ██ ██████ ████████ ███ ██████ █████
Mismatched premises and conclusion. (C) concludes that an expert is correct, because he’s the only one who’s examined something. The stimulus concludes that a non-expert is likely incorrect, because an unbiased expert made an examination and disagrees. So neither the conclusion nor the premises are parallel.
d
The reporter who ████████ ███████████ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ███ █ █████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ██ ████ ███████ █████ ████ █████████ █████ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████████
Mismatched premises and conclusion. (D) concludes that we should accept a reporter’s conclusion, even though he has reason to be biased. The stimulus concludes that we should doubt a reporter’s conclusion, because an unbiased expert disagrees. Neither the conclusion nor the premises are parallel here.
e
The snowblower salesperson ██████ ████ █████ ████ ██ █████████████ ████████ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ██████
Mismatched premises. (E) concludes that, because the source is biased, we should doubt a claim. The stimulus concludes that, because an unbiased expert disagrees, we should doubt a claim.