- Athe officer does not state how many volunteers have so far been called trained
- Bthe reason offered merely restates the conclusion — the second sentence is made true by the officer's own use of the word, and would be as true if the training taught nothing whatever, since anyone unable to do the work would simply not be called trained
- Cthe officer has taken the volunteers' own word for what they are able to do
- Dthe officer does not say how long the training lasts
Step-by-Step Solution
The officer's second sentence cannot fail. He has defined 'trained' as able to do the work, so reporting that everyone he calls trained can do the work is reporting the definition back, and a sentence that no possible state of the world could falsify carries no information about the training. The figure that would settle the question is a different one — of every hundred volunteers who sit through the course, how many come out able to do the work — and the officer's way of counting keeps it permanently out of sight. How many have been called trained, how the volunteers were assessed and how long the course runs would all be worth knowing, but none of them is the reason the argument fails.
Answer: B) the reason offered merely restates the conclusion — the second sentence is made true by the officer's own use of the word, and would be as true if the training taught nothing whatever, since anyone unable to do the work would simply not be called trained