L2006/6-2-5

Letter to the editor: Middle-class families in wealthy nations are often criticized for the ecological damage resulting from their their lifestyles. This criticism should not be taken too seriouly, however, since its source is often a moive star or celebrity whose own lifestyle would , if widely  adopted, destroy  the environment and deplete our resorces in a short time.

The reason in the letter of the editor is vulnerable to vriticism i that it

A) criticizes a characteristic of the peple giving an argument rather than critizing the argument itself

B)take failure to act consistently with a belief as an indication of the sincerity with which that belief is held

C)presume s that a view point must be unreasonable to accept simply because some of the grounds avanced to support it do not adequately do so

D) fails to recognize that evidence advanced in support of a conclusion actually undermines that conclusion

E) genrealizes about the behavior of all people on the basis of the behavior of a few

The correct answer is A.But why not choose C?

I don't think the word "source" in stimulus  equals " characteristic" in choice A .Do you know  what is the " characteristics "of the people giving the argument? Who is the " people" here?

Besides, why  is " middle-class" referred to " a movie star or celebrity"? Do you think they are middle class? This point is confusing.

Thank you.

Ok,i got it.Thank you !

 There are three entities in the argument. The one write letter to editor, the middle-class , the celebrity. The celebrity criticize the the middle-class people with their argument,which is not really showed in this stimulus; while the one write letter to editor criticized the celebrity's argument by pointing out their lifestyle.