Single choice · #526
At a company press conference, someone asked: The head of the winning supplier is reportedly related to the procurement director—how can the fairness of this bid evaluation be guaranteed? The spokesperson replied: By asking such a question, are you taking money from competitors? Everyone can see your intentions. Which of the following evaluations is most accurate?
Show answer & explanation
Answer: D
- AAlthough the spokesperson did not directly respond, they reminded the audience to be wary of the questioner's stance, which is valuable information for the press conference.✗ Wrong. This corresponds to the misunderstanding that 'attacking the motive counts as a valid response': the original question was about bid evaluation fairness, and warning about the questioner's stance cannot replace explaining the facts; the topic is actually shifted to who the questioner is.
- BWe should first investigate whether the questioner took money from competitors, and only after that decide whether to respond to the procurement issue.✗ Wrong. This corresponds to the misunderstanding of 'examine the questioner first, then the question': whether the question is valid is independent of who the questioner is, and even if the motive is never clarified, the impact of the family relationship on bid evaluation still needs to be explained.
- CThe questioner's hint of a family relationship to imply wrongdoing is itself an attack on character, so the spokesperson's retort balances things out.✗ Wrong. This corresponds to the misunderstanding of 'you did it too, so it evens out': pointing out a conflict of interest is a factual challenge to the procurement process, which is not the same nature as attacking the questioner's motive, and they cannot cancel each other out.
- DThe spokesperson did not explain whether the bid evaluation was affected by the family relationship; even if the questioner truly took money, the fairness issue still exists.✓ Correct. It distinguishes the questioner's motive from the validity of the question itself: the motive can be investigated separately but cannot replace evidence, and the conflict of interest and bid evaluation procedure must be addressed; attacking the questioner cannot refute the question.
Explanation:The original question was: does the family relationship affect the fairness of the bid evaluation? The spokesperson's counter-question shifted the discussion from 'whether the question is valid' to 'whether the questioner took money', which is an appeal to motive. Key principle: a motive can be investigated separately, but it cannot replace evidence; even if the questioner truly took money, the conflict of interest and the bid evaluation procedure still need to be directly explained. Examining the questioner before the question, treating the attack on motive as valid information, and using 'he also attacked' to balance things out are all examples of confusing character judgment with factual judgment. The correct approach is to answer: how the bid evaluation maintains independence and whether the relative recused themselves.