(A) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. Whether Professor Smith will benefit or not does not describe why the conclusion is flawed. We have no evidence of how the presence of several papers by well-known scientists in the field unanimously purporting to prove Professor Smith wrong "clearly shows" that the scientific establishment was threatened by Professor Smith's work.
(B) is incorrect because it is, again, irrelevant. Whether or not Professor Smith knew that the existence of the alleged new effect was incompatible with established theory does not touch upon why the stimulus is flawed.
(C) Is CORRECT because there is no evidence leading us to believe the scientific establishment was threatened by Smith's work and conspired to discredit it. There could be alternate causes as to why the results of the papers were negative. The scientists could have just wanted to establish the truth of the matter, and in so doing, realized that Smith was wrong. This is both the "No Evidence" flaw and the "Ignores Alternate Possibilities/Causes" flaw.
(D) Is incorrect because it is irrelevant. The author is making a conclusion on others and what they think of Smith's work. What the author's relationship to Professor Smith is has no bearing on the argument.
(E) Is incorrect because it is irrelevant. The public's confidence in the safety of most drinking water does not touch upon why the stimulus is flawed.
Hope that helps! Let us know if you have any other questions.
Abigail-OkerekeNovember 6, 2021
wait this isn't a red herring? I was so convinced it was.
RaviFebruary 5, 2022
@Abigail-Okereke, the flaw here is the argument's making a questionable assumption. The argument is overlooking the possibility that Professor Smith is wrong. It's possible that maybe the scientific community simply wants to put down someone who has a different opinion, but they also might be wanting to discover the truth, so that's why the argument is making a questionable assumption.
