University president: When a faculty member's falsification of research was uncovered, the media treated it as eviden...

SamA on March 26, 2020

Hello @Hatemz,

Here is how I approached this question. Because our answer choices will have nothing to do with falsification of research, we want to strip this passage of its specifics. What is the principle here, in vague terms?

A problem is discovered, which is said by some to indicate a larger issue. The author argues that this incident does not indicate a larger issue. However, the author acknowledges that it is good that the larger issue is being discussed.

A. There is no problem that indicates a larger issue here. Also, the author argues against a discussion of oversight, rather than admit its importance.

B. This follows the format. The government scandal is like the research falsification. The author argues that this does not indicate a lack of oversight. Yet the author admits that a discussion of oversight is important. This is the correct answer.

C. The original author never says it is good that the scandal occurred. This is a very different argument.

D. There is no claim here that the scandal indicates a larger issue. The author never offers support for a discussion of a larger issue.

E. Remember that the author must argue against attributing this scandal to a larger issue. However, no one ever made this claim in the first place. They agreed from the beginning that it was a simple case of corruption.