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

Hint:

The argument silently assumes a clean record proves skill, without ruling out luck or limited experience.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understanding the Concept.
The argument jumps from one fact (no violations recorded) straight to a conclusion (must be a great pilot), without stating what actually connects the two.

Step 2: Check option A.
No term in the argument is used in two different confusing senses, so there is no real ambiguity of definitions here.

Step 3: Check option B.
Circular reasoning means the conclusion is really just a restatement of the premise; here the premise (no violations) and the conclusion (great pilot) are genuinely different claims, so this is not circular.

Step 4: Check option D.
There is no comparison being drawn to a separate, similar situation, so this is not an argument by analogy.

Step 5: Check option C.
To get from “no recorded violations” to “great pilot”, the argument silently assumes that a clean record perfectly reflects skill, ignoring other explanations (luck, few flights, lenient reporting, and so on). This unstated assumption is exactly what the conclusion depends on.

Step 6: Final Answer.
The argument rests on a hidden assumption, so option C is correct.