Why is the journalist’s response to the economist flawed?

Question

Economist: Although open-source software has gained popularity in the last couple of years, its usefulness is quite limited. This is because the most creative ideas come from professional software designers, not volunteers.
Journalist: I, too, was once skeptical about whether open-source software would become a permanent feature of our world. However, I realized that this article could not have been produced without the open-source software volunteers who allowed me to interview them.
The journalist’s response to the economist is flawed for which of the following reasons?
A. The journalist has changed his mind about open-source software, making his response invalid.
B. The journalist refused to interview any professional software designers for his article.
C. The journalist does not address the economist’s argument that professional software designers are more creative than volunteers.
D. The journalist has written a series of articles on software development.
E. The journalist does not discuss the popularity of open-source software.

Answer 1

The Economist's argument is about the usefulness of the open-source software vs that of software made by professionals. He claims that the open-source software is not very useful because the volunteers who make it are not as creative as the professional software designers.
The journalist, rather than speaking about the usefulness of the software or compare the creativity of professionals vs volunteers, talks about how he benefited from the interviews he got from the volunteers!

A is a wrong choice because although the journalist seems to have changed his mind, that does not affect the validity of his response

B is clearly a wrong choice because of two reasons:
1. there's no information on whether or not he refused to interview professional software designers
2. The Economist's original argument has nothing to do with whom the journalist interviewed! So, it doesn't matter even if he did refuse to interview professionals

C is the right answer choice because the glaring flaw in the journalist's response is that he doesn't address the key point made by the Economist, i.e. about the creativity of the professionals vs that of the volunteers and the resulting usefulness of each kind of software

D is the wrong choice because it is not known and doesn't matter whether or not he wrote a series of articles

E The journalist is not expected to discuss the popularity of open-source software because the key point of deliberation is not about its popularity but it's usefulness and the creativity of its makers. In fact, the Economist himself acknowledges the popularity of the open-source software in the last couple of years!

Answer 2

C is correct. The Economist claims that professional software designers are more creative than volunteers. The journalist never addresses that claim. He merely states that open-source software has become a permanent feature of the world and that his article could not have been written without the permission of the volunteers.

What has creativity of professional software designers to do with the writing of the article? Nothing. Therefore the journalist's response is flawed.

 

A is incorrect because there is no necessary connection between the journalist changing his mind about open-source software and the claim that professional software designers are more creative than volunteers.

 

B is incorrect since the stem clearly says that the journalist did interview the volunteers. So this choice is contrary to fact.

 

D is incorrect since the economist's claim is subsequent to the journalist's articles and there is no mention of what the articles were about.

 

E is incorrect since the journalist talks about open-source software becoming popular and does not address the claim that one group is more creative than the other.