Q16 - University president: When a faculty member's falsific

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Match the Principle (Match the Reasoning)

Stimulus Breakdown:
The media's focus on the university's standards blows this case out of proportion, since it was just a simple case of dishonesty, but the overall discussion is a good one to have.

Answer Anticipation:
Let's find an answer where a specific case is blown out of proportion, but it allows for a worthwhile conversation to be had.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Mismatched premise and conclusion. Here, two things build on each other (oversight and corruption); in the stimulus, one was blown out of proportion into the other. Also, the conclusion was about this conversation being worthwhile, not that there should be multiple discussions.

(B) Perfect. There's a case blown out of proportion (oversight vs. simple corruption), but it's brought about a good conversation on an important topic.

(C) Premise mismatch. The scandal has two attributes, not an overblown one and a simple one. Also, there's an intermediate conclusion here, and a weighting of the pros and cons, both missing from the stimulus.

(D) Premise and conclusion mismatch. In this situation, the simple explanation is cited as incorrect, Also, the conclusion is about overall harm, not about a good discussion developing.

(E) Premise and conclusion mismatch. In this situation, the simple explanation is cited as being incomplete. Also, the conclusion is about the focus of the discussion and the importance of that discussion's topic in the given case; the stimulus mentions that the topic of discussion is important despite not being present in the case at hand.

Takeaway/Pattern: Try to abstract these up front!

#officialexplanation