Q16 - The recently negotiated North American

[mcrittell]

Perhaps I'm looking at this all wrong (well, not perhaps), but I took the stim to have a scope shift from NAFTA being "misnamed" to then becoming "harmful." This is why I chose E, citing a "different issue." I saw Adam Smith, and recognize that he's prominent and gives rise to the mechanism from which the arg stems from, but I felt like him as an authorial originator was filler. Is D's usage of "appeal to a relevant authority" invoke the theories he purveys?

[maryadkins]

This is an "Analyze the Argument" question--you're being asked how the question proceeds. On this kind of question (how does the argument proceed), you're not looking for the flaw really. You're looking for the structure of the argument. There could be term shifts spotted here including the one you mentioned, but more specifically, the question is asking what the structure of the argument is. What does the whole thing rely on?

We're given a conclusion followed by evidence, which consists of saying what Adam Smith as the founder of free trade theory said. Then the argument applies Smith's belief to NAFTA. (D) gets at this.

(A) is incorrect because the argument doesn't rule out any alternatives.

(B) is too vague. What term? How?

(C) is incorrect because it doesn't cite an instance but a person.

(E) is incorrect because while there may be subtle term shifts, the issue discussed is still free trade--that's the focus of both the conclusion and the premise.

[Shiggins]

(B) is too vague. What term? How?

When I did this question I had this as a choice I had difficulty ruling out. The question is asking us to explain the structure of the argument.

I thought at first the term "obstruction" and "national boundaries" were used interchangeably and were not of the same context. But I see the context displaces them both as an impedement to free trade. This is something I just want to clarify with you.

Also in flaw questions in which a choice like this is the answer. It should be between evidence and conclusion. I ask that because hypothetically:lets say the terms obstruction and national boundaries were vauge or improperly used interchangeably. Those terms fall in what I believe are the premise and subsidiary conclusion of the argument. Any help in clarifying what I wrote is much appreciated. Thank you.

[maryadkins]

You are right that in general it is good to look for term shifts. But the key is to ask yourself if they are critical term shifts--if they are term shifts that implicate the argument at its core. Here, the shift between obstruction and national boundaries isn't the essence of the argument.

On a question that asks you how the entire argument proceeds, you want to think about the argument as a whole.

And yes, on flaw questions (which this one isn't, remember), you want to pick an answer choice that addresses the gap between the evidence and conclusion.

[EmaD316]

I was stuck between C and D. For C, I thought the "nonrepresentative instance" would be the workers being restricted by national boundaries. Can someone explain why this is wrong? Thanks

[QingyiY938]

It was tough to see D at first. but after not liking any of them I went back and double checked how the evidence was used. So obviously A and C are out. There's no sample, the workers is an example and if the example is true, it definitely renders the "free trade" part to be wrong.
E says responding to a different issue. That's not the case because The author is using the entire argument to explain why they think the agreement is misnamed.

B says using two terms differently. This is tough to assess but in these questions, a shift in meaning usually stands out like a sore thumb and the only contender was free trade but I didnn't see that happening.

D. I also thought this was not right at first because adam smith was just the guy cited for his definition. But upon closer look at the send part of the premise, how does the worker situation come about to be support for the conclusion? It's based on the definition by Adam smith. So yes, we can prove that they do appeal to authority. Also, This is not a flaw question although the answer choices are often in a flaw question. it's a method question and in these we need a provable answer. We can prove D. they do appeal to authority.