Critical Reasoning

Editorial: In rejecting the plan proposed by parliament to reform the electoral process, the president clearly acted in the best interests of the nation. Anyone who thinks otherwise should remember that the president made this decision knowing it would be met with fierce opposition at home and widespread disapproval abroad. All citizens who place the nation's well-being above narrow partisan interests will applaud this courageous action.

The reasoning in the editorial is in error because

(A) it confused a quality that is merely desirable in a political leader with a quality that is essential to effective political decision-making
(B) it fails to distinguish between evidence concerning the courage required to make a certain decision and evidence concerning the wisdom of making that decision
(C) it ignores the likelihood that many citizens have no narrow partisan interest in the proposed election reform plan
(D) it overlooks the possibility that there was strong opposition to the parliament's plan among members of the president's own party
(E) it depends on the unwarranted assumption that any plan proposed by a parliament will necessarily serve only narrow partisan interests

[spoiler]could somebody explain this?
OA Later[/spoiler]

IMO B.

The author assumes that, simply because the president made the decision under trying circumstances, then the president has, thus, made the right decision. This is obviously flawed reasoning because making a hard decision is not the same as making the right decision. B summarized this point, which is why I picked B.

Could you please confirm what the OA is?

Hope this helps.

Thanks,

Jared

Hi,

yep, the correct answer is definitely choice B, and great reasoning, jared. It's so important to paraphrase these arguments. The author's argument can be paraphrased as:

"Because he was courageous (standing up against the opposition), he acted in the best interests of the nation."

Well, just because the president did something unpopular that requires bravery doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

With such a clear prediction, and such a clear match in choice B, one can select B without even looking at the remaining choices (thereby saving time and boosting score).

Any particular wrong answer nagging you, paes?

Thanks Testluv for the reply.

B -> the word 'wisdom' is looking out of scope to me.

C was convincing to me.

Conclusion : All citizens who place the nation's well-being above narrow partisan interests will applaud this courageous action.

C : it ignores the likelihood that many citizens have no narrow partisan interest in the proposed election reform plan

---> thus such citizens obviously will/should not applaud the proposal.

The other point, I want to ask - how to attack the 'flawed reasoning' problems.

One way is to find out the faulty assumption.

Is there any other way to attack such type of questions ?

IMO B

The editorial says the president made a good decision
Why?
Because, he made the decision knowing people would oppose it.
Courage is mentioned, reasoning is not

B - yep, that's what I think

Paes, C is out of scope, because the argument is that the president made a good decision, whether or not few or many do not have a narrow partisan interest does not change the correctness of the decision.