What is the best evaluation of this argument? "A university was saved from financial and academic disaster by its provost, who later went on to become a consultant. James Hoopster became a consultant after having served as a provost. So James Hoopster saved his university from financial and academic disaster."
A) It is a valid inference.
B) It is invalid because we do not know what a provost is.
C) It is invalid because we do now know when Hoopster was a provost.
D) It is invalid because we cannot be sure if we are referring to the same provost.
E) It is invalid because the dean saved the university from financial and academic disaster.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The argument assumes that the provost being referred to in the second sentence is the same provost as the one who saved the university in the first sentence. However, there is no information provided to make this assumption. It is possible that there are multiple provosts or that Hoopster served as provost at a different university. Therefore, the argument is invalid.

What Is the Best Evaluation of This Argument? "A University