Question

Vijay claimed that the large dent in the fender of the company-owned vehicle he had borrowed was caused by the careless actions of another motorist, who backed into the car when it was parked in a public garage. Yet Vijay's own car has several dents in its fenders, all of which he acknowledges as having caused by his own careless driving. Therefore, Vijay's contention that the dent in the formerly undented company-owned vehicle was caused by the careless actions of another person is not true.

The reasoning in this argument is vulnerable because of it

विकल्प

• Fails to recognize that Vijay could be lying about the dents in his own vehicle

• Fails to recognize that the motorist who backed into him simply did not see him

• Fails to acknowledge that many such accidents occur in parking garages

• Presumes, without justification, that because Vijay has caused similar dents to his own car, he caused the dent in the company car

Answer 1

Presumes, without justification, that because Vijay has caused similar dents to his own car, he caused the dent in the company car

Explanation:

This argument's reasoning is vulnerable because it presumes, without justification, that because Vijay has caused a similar dent to his own car, he caused the dent in the company car.