Newspaper subscriber: Arnot's editorial argues that by making certain fundamental changes in government we would virt...

Irina on November 10, 2019

@Meredith,

(A) and (C) are opposites. (C) says the flaw is that the argument fails to consider that even though the conclusion is false, some of the assumptions may nonetheless be true, whereas the argument states that the conclusion is false purely because the premises/ the argument leading it to it is flawed, failing to consider possibility that it is possible to have false premises and a true conclusion.

For example consider this argument:
All women are Supreme Court justices.
Elena Kagan is a woman.
Therefore, Elena Kagan is a Supreme Court justice.

The conclusion here is true even though one of the premises is clearly false - only 3 women are on the Supreme Court. The stimulus overlooks this possibility, concluding that just because the conclusion that making changes to the government will eliminate social ills is based on flawed logic/ false premises, the claim/ conclusion must also be false as (A) states.