This is a flaw question that asks us to identify an error in the author's reasoning. The author concludes that the proposal to give college students a broader choice in planning their course of study should be abandoned because the students who are supporting it will never be satisfied. The author concludes that the proposal has no merit based solely on the fact that its supporters' intent is questionable instead of considering the substance of the proposal itself. This is the flaw in the author's argument and is expressed in the correct answer choice A.
Now, let's consider answer choices C & D.
(C) "fails to define the critical term "satisfied."" It is incorrect because the fact that the term is not defined is not what makes the argument flawed, imagine the author did define it, would it correct the flaw? No, because his assessment of the proposal would still be based on its supporters rather than the proposal itself.
(D) "distorts the proposal advocated by opponents". This is simply not true, there is no discussion of the proposal advocated by opponents - if there is even now. We are only talking about one proposal and its supporters, not any other alternative proposal.
Let me know if this helps.
Lauren-AuJuly 18, 2019
Thank you so much this helps a ton! @Irina
KathOctober 26, 2019
Cloud you tell me why the author focused on the intent of the supporters rather than the academic achievements, like they failed courses? In the first instance, I thought the flaw to be the sample is so small since the argument only listed "some" students' performance. At the second look, I thought the flaw was to the meaning of "satisfied" does not corresponded to the premise listed, such as the performance of the students. Could you please tell me where I am wrong? @Irina
