Q14 - Wu: Jurgen is dishonest....

[jaf51200]

Can someone please explain what the flaw is in Miller's reasoning? For some reason I don't see it clearly. Does it have anything to do with Miller ignoring the negative consequences of having a dishonest mayor?

[maryadkins]

The problem is that Miller attacks Wu's reason NOT to elect Jurgens and then uses that as a reason TO elect Jurgens. But just because a reason NOT to elect him may be invalid doesn't mean he SHOULD be elected! Maybe there are other reasons not to elect Jurgens. He's 15 years old. He's rude. He's a criminal.

(A) matches this: Miller attacks Wu's reason NOT to go to the restaurant (food too slow) and uses that as a basis to argue they SHOULD. This isn't a good way of arguing, logically speaking. Miller should give an actual reason why they should, not solely negate a reason why they SHOULDN'T.

As for the others:

(B) is a better argument than the one Miller makes in the stimulus, because now he's actually giving a reason why Bailey's aggressiveness is good!

(C) Same here!

(D) Same here!

(E) is off because Miller introduces a whole new person who Wu hasn't even mentioned.

Hope this helps!