Question

Nilu has never received a violation from the Federal Aviation Administration during her 16-year flying career. Nilu must be a great pilot. Which of the following can be said about the reasoning above?

• A. The definitions of the terms create ambiguity
• B. The argument uses circular reasoning
• C. The argument is built upon hidden assumptions
• D. The argument works by analogy

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

The statement aims to conclude that Nilu is a great pilot solely based on her unblemished record with the Federal Aviation Administration over 16 years. To evaluate the logic of this reasoning, we must identify any underlying assumptions:

1. First, this argument assumes that not receiving FAA violations directly correlates to being a "great pilot." It overlooks other potential factors that may contribute to piloting skills, including but not limited to safety, decision-making, and overall competence in handling unforeseen situations. 
2. Secondly, the argument does not account for the possibility that Nilu may have had a lack of exposure to situations that typically lead to FAA violations, rather than demonstrating exceptional skill in avoiding all such situations.

Therefore, the conclusion of Nilu being a great pilot is based on the assumption that an unblemished FAA record inherently implies high piloting skills without considering any other criteria or additional context.

Hence, the argument contains hidden assumptions regarding what defines a "great pilot." This clarification aligns with the correct option: "The argument is built upon hidden assumptions."