Self-study
Joanna: The only way for a company to be successful, after emerging from bankruptcy, is to produce the same goods or services that it did before going bankrupt. ██ ██ ██████ ███ ████ █ ███████ ██ ███ ██ █████ █ █████ ███ █████████
█████ ██████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ █ █████ ██████ █████████ ████ ████ ████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███████████ ██████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ █████████ ███ ██ █████████ █ ██████ ██████████ ████████████████ ████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Joanna leads with the claim that if a company emerges from bankruptcy, the only way for it to succeed is by providing the same goods and services as before. Joanna doesn't provide evidence for this claim, but just emphasizes it: it isn't worth it for a company in this situation to try to learn a new business. Ruth responds that Joanna is wrong, and backs up her claim with a specific example: the Kelton Company, a former mining operation that, after emerging from bankruptcy, became successful after pivoting into waste management.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Ruth counters Joanna's position, which is presented without evidence, by providing a specific counterexample that disproves Joanna's claim. If it is true that the Kelton Company, after emerging from bankruptcy, succeeded by providing different services than before, then Joanna's claim that a company can only succeed after bankruptcy by doing the same thing as before cannot be true.
1.
Ruth uses which one of ███ █████████ █████████████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ████████ █████████
a
She presents a ██████████████ ██ █ ██████
This is correct. The counterexample Ruth presents is the Kelton Company, which contradicts Joanna's claim that a company can only succeed after emerging from bankruptcy by providing the same services as before.
b
She offers an ███████████ ███████████ ███ █ ███████████
Ruth does not offer an alternative explanation for any phenomenon — nor does Joanna offer an explanation for any phenomenon in the first place. Joanna makes a general claim without evidence, and Ruth responds with a specific counterexample.
c
She supports a █████ ██ ████████ █ █████████ ███ ████████ ████████
Ruth’s response presents a counterexample, not an analogy. She also wants to undermine Joanna's claim, not support it.
d
She undermines a █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██████████
Ruth doesn't mention any ambiguities.
e
She establishes a ██████████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ █████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ███████████
Ruth isn't building a positive case. The only conclusion she argues for is that Joanna's claim is wrong. Ruth herself does not argue for a specific conclusion by excluding alternative explanations, let alone "the only" alternative explanation to anything.