Critical Reasoning

Maas is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality. The most
compelling pieces of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles
submitted by Maas that are superior, since Maas, who is incapable of writing
an article that is better than average, obviously must have plagiarized the
superior ones.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following
grounds?

(A) It simply ignores the existence of potential counterevidence.
(B) It generalizes from atypical occurrences.
(C) It presupposes what it seeks to establish.
(D) It relies on the judgment of experts in a matter where their expertise
is irrelevant.
(E) It infers limits on ability from a few isolated lapses in performance.

OA after some discussions

nikhilgmat31 wrote:Maas is, at best, able to write magazine articles of average quality. The most
compelling pieces of evidence for this are those few of the numerous articles
submitted by Maas that are superior, since Maas, who is incapable of writing
an article that is better than average, obviously must have plagiarized the
superior ones.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following
grounds?

This question, like many CR questions, has answer choices that are worded in such a way as to seem valid when actually they are not. So possibly more important than understanding the specific explanation to this question is noting the pitfalls and developing an approach to handling CR questions such that you will not be fooled and will find right answers.

(A) It simply ignores the existence of potential counterevidence.

This is tempting, because there is counterevidence, but you need to be careful here. The counterevidence is not ignored. Rather it is deemed falsified.

(B) It generalizes from atypical occurrences.

This is interesting, because in its twisted way the argument uses atypical cases to prove its point, but it does not generalize from them. It merely uses them as "evidence".

(C) It presupposes what it seeks to establish.

This is it. The argument presupposes that Mass cannot write articles of superior quality, and then uses that argument as a way of nullifying evidence that weakens the argument.

(D) It relies on the judgment of experts in a matter where their expertise
is irrelevant.

There is no discussion of the judgment of others or the relevance of anyone's expertise.

(E) It infers limits on ability from a few isolated lapses in performance.

Actually it infers limits on ability from the majority of observed instances, and further infers limits on ability from a few isolated cases of superior performance. Once again you need to be careful to notice exactly what is being said. Yes there are isolated cases, but they are not cases of lapses in performance.

So the only one that makes sense is C.

Plz explain why especially option A and C is wrong/right?
Im still confused?

Mechmeera wrote:Plz explain why especially option A and C is wrong/right?

A says that the argument ignores the existence of potential counter evidence, but this is not the case. The argument actually includes discussion of counter evidence, the superior articles. So this evidence is not ignored.

Instead the argument presupposes what it seeks to establish, as C says, and so the counter evidence is not ignored. Instead it is twisted to fit the conclusion.