We are given a fact about "the great medieval universities." We know that they had no administrators and "yet they endured for centuries." We know that "our university has a huge administrative staff," and that "we are in serious financial difficulties." The argument then concludes based on this that "we should abolish the positions and salaries of the administrators to ensure the longevity of the university."
The author is incorrectly assuming that having no administrators is the sufficient condition for the universities enduring for centuries. There is no information in the passage that supports this. The fact that the great medieval universities had no administrators is not necessarily the reason why they endured for centuries. Thus, the author falsely concludes that to ensure the longevity of the university, they must abolish the positions and salaries of the administrators.
Likewise, answer choice (B) describes a characteristic fact about "the novelist." It states that "the novelist's stories began to be accepted for publication soon after she started using a computer to write them." We know that "you have been having trouble getting your stories accepted for publication, and you do not use a computer. Therefore, the argument takes the characteristic of "the novelist" (that she started using a computer to write her stories) to be sufficient for the novelist's work to have been accepted for publication and, thus, states that you should write your stories with aid of a computer "to make sure your stories are accepted for publication."
Hope that helped! Please let us know if you have any more questions.
Jay75August 7, 2018
I'm confused because the question talks about the omission of something, while answer choice B talks about the addition of something, it seems like they go in two opposite directions
AnitaAugust 8, 2018
@Jay75 Here, the main issue isn't about the addition or deletion of something. The flaw is that one potential change is focused on as the way to definitively make the right change. Just as what worked for medieval universities may not work today, what worked for one writer may not work for another.
GLEEDecember 16, 2018
What's wrong with choice A?
RaviDecember 17, 2018
@GLEE,
Answer choice (A) does not contain flawed reasoning that most closely parallels the flawed reasoning in the argument in the stimulus. In fact, answer choice (A) is essentially a valid argument. If airplanes were flying before airplanes had jet engines, then it is true that jet engines are not necessary for the operation of airplanes.
Does this make sense? By the way, I say that this argument is essentially valid because some may ask if "the operation of airplanes" means the same thing as "ability to fly." That said, this is a minor difference, and the structure of this argument is still sound.
