Question Type:
Flaw
Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: We don't need to be worried that our nation is in decline, as many essays suggest.
Evidence: The anxious tone of these essays shows that the writer is just anxious, not that our nation is in decline.
Answer Anticipation:
Wow, looks like a Circular Argument! The author is trying to argue that the nation is not in decline. The essays are potential counterevidence, but the author just rules out their legitimacy without any real reason. It's eligible for the classic answer of "the author assumes what it sets out to prove".
Someone with an open mind might read the essay and think, "Wow, maybe the nation is in decline". Someone with a preformed agenda that the nation is doing fine will read it and say, "They must just be anxious because they're anxious people".
Correct Answer:
A
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) YES, this seems accurate and is indeed a flaw. The author certainly didn't address any reasons offered in the essays. He just said, "Their anxious tone disqualifies them from serious consideration".
(B) Did this compare two situations? I can't match that up.
(C) "Political" is out of scope.
(D) It wouldn't be an objection to this argument to tell the author, "Hey, author, the nation is holding steady at the status quo". So it doesn't matter whether the author overlooked this possibility.
(E) The author didn't offer evidence that supports the view that the nation is in decline.
Takeaway/Pattern: Since this argument is structured as a rebuttal against another's point of view, we should be listening/looking carefully for any illegal form of objection (Attacking the Person … Unproven vs. Untrue) or any form of bad listening. This author fails to give potentially disconfirming evidence a fair hearing, sweeping it away with some spurious accusation that the writers are simply anxious people.
#officialexplanation