evidence vs opinion

[navdeep_bajwa]

Policy analyst: Most government agencies become less effective over time. Some experts go so far as to recommend that every agency be eliminated after 10 years and created anew by replacing all of its existing personnel and revamping its bureaucratic structure. However, this policy would be impractical since certain government agencies perform vital functions, such as protecting national security, and therefore cannot afford even temporary upheaval.

The answer mentions first bold statement as a evidence It looks more like a opinion than fact

[RonPurewal]

Policy analyst: Most government agencies become less effective over time. Some experts go so far as to recommend that every agency be eliminated after 10 years and created anew by replacing all of its existing personnel and revamping its bureaucratic structure. However, this policy would be impractical since certain government agencies perform vital functions, such as protecting national security, and therefore cannot afford even temporary upheaval.

The answer mentions first bold statement as a evidence It looks more like a opinion than fact

hi -

forum rules - please include the FULL question, WITH ANSWER CHOICES, with your post. thanks.

[lemonperb]

Policy analyst: Most government agencies become less effective over time. Some experts go so far as to recommend that every agency be eliminated after 10 years and created anew by replacing all of its existing personnel and revamping its bureaucratic structure. However, this policy would be impractical since certain government agencies perform vital functions, such as protecting national security, and therefore cannot afford even temporary upheaval.

In the policy analyst's argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?


A.The first is evidence offered in support of an opinion that the policy analyst rejects; the second offers information that contradicts that evidence.
B.The first is a premise that the policy analyst accepts but argues against; the second offers evidence that supports the analyst's position.
C.The first is a position that the policy analyst argues against; the second is the position that the analyst defends.
D.The first is a generalization that the policy analyst accepts as accurate and is used as the basis for an opinion that the analyst rejects; the second is a consideration used to defend the analyst's position.
E.The first is a generalization that the policy analyst accepts as accurate and is used as the basis for the analyst's position; the second offers another consideration used to defend that position.

OA is D.
My question is
1.in D, why the first boldface is "a generalization"? I thought "a generalization" is something like "a conclusion".
2.Why C is wrong? Why can't the first and second boldface be positions?

[RonPurewal]

1.in D, why the first boldface is "a generalization"? I thought "a generalization" is something like "a conclusion".

A generalization is a statement that's general. I.e., not specific. Covering lots of cases at once.

This is a statement about "most government agencies". That's a general statement.

[RonPurewal]

2.Why C is wrong? Why can't the first and second boldface be positions?

The first is stated as a fact.
A "position" is where someone stands on an issue; it's not a fact, and it needs to be supported by evidence and/or supporting claims.

Just as importantly, this choice is white when you want black.
The author accepts the first statement as a given"”but this answer choice says that the author opposes it!