Insurance that was to become effective at 9 A.M. on a certain date was taken out on the life of a flight attendant. He died on that date at 10 A.M. local time, which was two hours before 9 A.M. in the time zone where the policy had been purchased. The insurance company contended that the policy had not become effective; a representative of the flight attendant’s beneficiary, his mother, countered by arguing that the policy amount should be paid because the attendant had been his mother’s sole support, and she was ill.
The representative’s argument is flawed as a counter to the insurance company’s contention because
(A) the conclusion is no more than a paraphrase of evidence offered in support of it
(B) it appeals to the emotion of pity rather than addressing the issue raised
(C) it makes an unwarranted distinction between family obligations and business obligations
(D) it substitutes an attack on a person for the giving of reasons
(E) a cause and its effect are mistaken for each other
:roll:
The representative’s argument is flawed as a counter to the insurance company’s contention because
(A) the conclusion is no more than a paraphrase of evidence offered in support of it
(B) it appeals to the emotion of pity rather than addressing the issue raised
(C) it makes an unwarranted distinction between family obligations and business obligations
(D) it substitutes an attack on a person for the giving of reasons
(E) a cause and its effect are mistaken for each other
:roll:
Please share your idea and your reasoning 
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
