Mr. Nance: Ms. Chan said that she retired from Quad Cities Corporation, and had received a watch and a wonderful party as thanks for her 40 years of loyal service. But I overheard a colleague of hers say that Ms. Chan will be gone for much of the next year on business trips and is now working harder than she ever did before; that does not sound like retirement to me. At least one of them is not telling the truth.
M. Nance’s reasoning is flawed because it
Answer explanation:Let's analyze the argument first, Mr. Nance: Ms.Chan said that she retired from X company. But Mr. Nance heard from her colleague that Ms. Chan will be gone for much of the next year on business trips and is now working harder than she ever did before.
Conclusion: At least one of them is not telling the truth.
Understand the flaw:Here Mr. Nance has assumed the definition of retirement on his own and based on that definition he concludes that one of them is not telling the truth. While retirement is subjective. Ms. Chan might work for free to help poor people or for social activities and her business trips might be caused by such involvement.
(A) is based in part on hearsay
-- Incorrect. Mr. Nance is confused and not able to conclude "who is correct?". Ms. Chan or her colleague? (B) criticizes Ms. Chan rather than the claims she made
--Out of scope, No criticism whatsoever (C) draws a conclusion based on equivocal language
--Correct. Equivocal = Ambiguous. Here Mr. Nance has considered his own understanding and definition of retirement.
For detail read the explanation given above.(D) fails to consider that Ms. Chan’s colleague may have been deceived by her
--Out of scope. (E) fails to infer that Ms. Chan must be a person of superior character, given her long loyal service
--Out of scopeI hope it helps. Please give kudos if you liked the explanation.