"A university was saved from financial and academic disaster by its provost, who later went on to become a consultant. James Hoopster became a consultant after having served as a provost. So James Hoopster saved his university from financial and academic disaster." What is the best evaluation of this argument?
The best evaluation of this argument will be that this seems to be an invalid argument as we have no way of being sure that we are referring to that same provost who saved the institute.
