PT20.S4.Q20 - the report released by the interior ministry

Comments

• Matt1234567 Inactive ⭐

  June 2015 1294 karma

  The original flaw in the argument is appealing to authority in a case where their expertise is not helpful.
  The original argument has to do with the environment, and then we get the conclusion that the figures cited in the report are not accurate, because a distinguished mathematician asserted that the program could not have been supported.
  
  Answer choice (E) has the same flaw, we get a bicycling engineer saying that a person could not have won the race, therefore the report that they won the race cannot be true. However, an engineer's authority isn't really relevant about whether a person could win bicycle race.
  
  Answer choice C is appealing to a breathing specialist in order to conclude that someone's claim about holding their breath for a period of time cannot be true.
  
  Answer choice C is really tricky, because in my opinion it relies on you to assume that a cardiopulmonary specialist is a breathing expert. However, I think even without picking up on that assumption, the fact that a Doctor is speaking about a physiological issue is enough to disqualify it as an answer choice, since they do have authority in health care.
• iustitia Member

  June 2015 30 karma

  Thank you !!!