Contrary to the Changes..

[Sprite_TM]

Questions 2-3 are based on the following.
Contrary to the charges made by some of its opponents, the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified. Opponents should remember that the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles even though some of its programs were later found to be unconstitutional.
2. The author’s method of attacking the charges of certain opponents of the new deficit-reduction law is to
(A) attack the character of the opponents rather than their claim
(B) imply an analogy between the law and some New Deal programs
(C) point out that the opponents’ claims imply a dilemma
(D) show that the opponents’ reasoning leads to an absurd conclusion
(E) show that the New Deal also called for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget

OA: b
3. The opponents could effectively defend their position against the author’s strategy by pointing out that
(A) the expertise of those opposing the law is outstanding
(B) the lack of justification for the new law does not imply that those who drew it up were either inept or immoral
(C) the practical application of the new law will not entail indiscriminate budget cuts
(D) economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal in severity to those that have led to the present law
(E) the fact that certain flawed programs or laws have improved the economy does not prove that every such program can do so

OA e

[thought]

IMO, the author's argument proceeds like this:

(Because) the New Deal pulled this country out of great economic troubles, therefore the provisions of the new deficit-reduction law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are justified.

So the author attacks the opponents by basically saying "The new deal worked, so this will work too"

2.

(A) Wrong because there is no personal attack mentioned
(B) Correct answer: Analogy -- "The new deal worked, so this will work too"
(C) Wrong because there is no 'dilemma' mentioned
(D) Wrong because there is no mention of the opponent's reasoning
(E) Next best answer but wrong because the argument only mentions that the New Deal "pulled this country out of great economic troubles" NOT necessarily that it had indiscriminate cuts

3. Opponent's can EFFECTIVELY defend their position (that the new law for indiscriminate cuts in the federal budget are NOT justified) by pointing out that the New Deal analogy is weak or doesn't apply in some way.

(A) Wrong. Defends the opponent's position ineffectively because it doesn't address the argument (and relies on the logic fallacy of appeal to authority)
(B) Wrong. Doesn't address the argument.
(C) Wrong. Very Wrong. The opponent's position is simply that indiscriminate budget cuts aren't justified. If there are no indiscriminate budget cuts then the opponents don't have a position as presented in the argument.
(D) Wrong. Very Wrong. If economic troubles present at the time of the New Deal were equal to those present now then the author's analogy is strong. (And the opponents position is weak.)
(E) Correct. Basically says that just because the flawed New Deal worked, it doesn't mean that this law will.

[graem83d]

Thanks for the replies. I too marked B and E