Topic: Critical Reasoning
Skills Tested: Argumentative Techniques, Evidence Interpretation, Strength of Reasoning, Logical Flaws and Assumptions, Elimination of Incorrect Options
Question:
In a certain country, the government maintains agricultural counseling offices to dispense free advice. Critics contend these offices should close, since they are a waste of public money. Office staff counter that the value to farmers of the advice given greatly exceeds the cost of maintaining those offices. The critics’ response is that it is precisely services generating such extra value that can, and therefore should, be rendered by private enterprise for profit.
In their response, the critics of the counseling offices use which of the following argumentative techniques?
Options:
A. Attempting to show that evidence used by the opposing side to support its position actually undermines that position
B. Arguing that the opposing side, in gathering its evidence, systematically neglected potential counterevidence
C. Attempting to show that the opposing side had confused the notion of revenue with that of profit
D. Attempting to show that something that is beneficial when provided without charge would also be beneficial when provided for profit
E. Arguing that the opposing side’s conclusion is invalid because it depends on a claim that is demonstrably false
Correct Answer
A. Attempting to show that evidence used by the opposing side to support its position actually undermines that position
Explanation:
The critics use a specific argumentative technique to counter the office staff’s claim. Let’s analyze the scenario:
- The Argument by the Office Staff (Opposing Side):
The office staff argue that the value of the advice given to farmers greatly exceeds the cost of maintaining the counseling offices. This is their central evidence to support the idea that the offices should remain operational. - The Critics’ Response:
The critics take this very evidence (the high value of the service) and argue that it supports their own position instead—that services generating such extra value should be rendered by private enterprise for profit. - The Technique Used:
The critics are turning the evidence provided by the opposing side against them. This matches the description of option A: Attempting to show that evidence used by the opposing side to support its position actually undermines that position.
Why Not the Other Options?
- Option B: There’s no mention of the opposing side neglecting counterevidence or showing systematic bias in their data collection.
- Option C: The argument does not involve confusion between revenue and profit.
- Option D: While the critics argue for privatization, they do not claim that something beneficial when free would also be beneficial when provided for profit.
- Option E: The critics do not claim that the office staff’s conclusion depends on a demonstrably false claim.
Thus, option A is the best choice because it accurately describes how the critics use the evidence against the opposing side.
Summary
Re-examining the Argument
- Office Staff’s Claim:
The advice given by the offices has a value that exceeds the cost of maintaining them. - Critics’ Response:
This value-generating service should be handled by private enterprise for profit instead of being maintained by the government.
Evaluating Option A
“Attempting to show that evidence used by the opposing side to support its position actually undermines that position.”
- Here, the office staff present evidence (the value of the service exceeds its cost) to justify keeping the offices open.
- The critics take that same evidence (the existence of “extra value”) and argue the opposite conclusion: that such value makes it ideal for private enterprises to take over.
This does align with the critics turning the evidence (value exceeds cost) against the office staff. Essentially, they reframe it to undermine the original position.
Evaluating Option D
“Attempting to show that something that is beneficial when provided without charge would also be beneficial when provided for profit.”
- The critics argue that because the service generates extra value, it could and should be profitable if provided by private enterprise.
- While this appears true on the surface, the core technique is not to show mutual benefit (free vs. for-profit) but to undermine the opposing argument by using their own evidence.
Key Difference
- Option A focuses on how the critics use the opposing side’s evidence (high value) to reach a different conclusion—this directly undermines the original argument.
- Option D suggests the critics argue for an alternative delivery method (for-profit) while assuming the benefit remains intact. While they do advocate for privatization, their technique isn’t merely about showing mutual benefit; it’s about flipping the evidence.
Final Conclusion
Option A is a more precise description of the argumentative technique.
The critics’ response directly uses the opposing evidence to argue for closing the offices, which matches the technique of undermining the original argument.
Correct Answer: A
Leave a Reply