Subscription pricing
Salespeople always steer customers toward products from which they make their highest commissions, and all salespeople in major health stores work on commission. Hence, when you buy vitamin supplements in a major health store, you can be sure that the claims the salespeople make about the quality of the products are inaccurate.
Obviously this is an ad hominem. I know that. But we are taught to apply a two step test: descriptively accurate and does it describe the flaw.
the right answer choice?
infers that some claims are inaccurate solely on the basis of the source of those claims
translation: 1-99 of claims are inaccurate, solely on the basis of the source of those claims.
how is this descriptively accurate? the argument assumes because sales people have specific incentives, salespeople are not telling the full truth.
the argument never says SOME claims are inaccurate, instead it says THE CLAIMS ARE INACCURATE. how the hell am I supposed to see the invisible some? Also the argument never says they are liars because they are sales people, it says it's because they work on commission.
someone tell me how I am wrong. I feel like im getting punished for being detail oriented.
0
8 comments
Could you help me understand what you mean by this:
"the argument never says SOME claims are inaccurate, instead it says THE CLAIMS ARE INACCURATE."
As I understand it, if the author thinks the salespeople's claims are inaccurate, isn't it true that the author thinks "some" claims are inaccurate" Remember, some means at least one. So the author is asserting that at least one claim is inaccurate (in particular, at least the claims made by salespeople concerning teh quality of the products).
It describes the flaw, but no way in hell is that descriptively accurate.