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

Whenever an argument's conclusion feels like a bigger claim than its evidence can support, the gap is usually filled by an unstated assumption, which is exactly the pattern here.

1. Evidence given: no FAA violations in 16 years.
2. Conclusion claimed: Nilu must be a great pilot.
3. For this jump to work, the argument must be silently assuming that having a clean record is the same thing as being highly skilled, when in reality a clean record could also come from caution, luck, or limited flying hours.

Since the argument's conclusion only holds up if we accept this unstated assumption, and the argument never actually states or defends it, this fits the description of an argument built on a hidden assumption, rather than ambiguous definitions, circular restatement, or analogy to another case.

So the correct answer is option C.