Critical Reasoning: Dialog Analysis Questions
Adviser: Flights and accommodation for members of our administration to overseas destinations seriously depleted last year's annual budget. I propose a reduction in the number of such administrative journeys in order to complete the upcoming year with a more significant profit than that of last year.
Foreign minister: Such visits often lead to financial partnerships that can form the basis for economic growth through cooperation.
The foreign minister responds to the advisor's proposal by
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The foreign minister's statement doesn't directly relate to the adviser's argument in any way. Instead, the statement adds new information which affects the suggestion made by the adviser.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The link suggested by the adviser seems quite logical - the visits are expensive and, therefore, affect the profits. The foreign minister doesn't not argue with this point. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that the foreign minister was highlighting a flaw in the adviser's logic.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]First, the foreign minister does not present a viewpoint (opinion) but rather factual information (a new premise). Second, the foreign minister has no problem with the facts about the visits being expensive, and does not try to deny this fact.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The foreign minister's statement is not an alternative strategy; the minister does not suggest any other way of lowering costs, but instead suggests a mitigating factor, that is, a redeeming quality about the flights.
Right on!
[[snippet]]The foreign minister does not deny the adviser's facts, but has a problem with the suggested plan of limiting the visits. The counter premise is the fact that visits ultimately lead to further revenues (economic growth) and, therefore, make the costs of the visits less significant, and even negligible to a certain point.
