Question (44th TEST IV)

[lhyde17]

I hope someone can help me to understand the logic behind this question and answer!

In what sense, (a) can make the maing argument weak? Thank you!!!

11. It is easy to see that the board of directors of the construction company is full of corruption and should be replaced. There are many instances of bribery by various persons on the staff of board member Wagton that are a matter of public record. These bribes perniciously influenced the awarding of government contracts.

The argument’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that

a)   the argument fails to show that corruption is not limited to Wagston’s staff

[nooyyllib]

this is not a weakening question.  it is a flaw question. 

the main claim of this stimulus is that "it is easy to see that the board of directors of the company is full of corruption and should be replaced".  aka everyone on the board of directors is corrupt. 

in supporting this claim the stimulus states that there are "many instances of bribery by persons on the staff of board member Wagston" aka bribery has happened within the staff of board member Wagston.

So the stimulus is basing its conclusion about the whole board on one member - Wagston.  The flaw being that the stimulus doesn't show that this is just one of the examples.  The stimulus states it like it is the only instance of corruption within the members. 

to be logically sound, the premise should be something like "there are many instances of bribery within the board of directors, for examples, the staff of board member Wagston..."

Hope this helps.

[River]

Premise: There are many instances of bribery by various persons on the staff of board member Wagton that are a matter of public record. These bribes perniciously influenced the awarding of government contracts.
=Wagton's staffs are corrupt

Conclusion: It is easy to see that the board of directors of the construction company is full of corruption and should be replaced.
=Thus, all of the board are corrupt

Here is the flaw:  one incident/ evidence may not convinve you that all cases similarily situated to that incident will have the same result.   

[lhyde17]

Thank you!!