Passage Summary: An author claims coal companies are the bad guys. A critic points out that one of the author's supporting facts is wrong, and then concludes the author's entire theory must be false.

Conclusion: Kramer’s claim that coal companies are responsible for the region's economic problems is false.

Reasoning: Although Kramer's sources claim the companies didn't invest in other industries, the companies actually did invest in roads and manufacturing.

Analysis: The editorial commits a 'fallacy of the counter-example.' Just because the critic found a flaw in Kramer's evidence (the lack of investment), it doesn't mean Kramer's ultimate conclusion (the companies are to blame) is wrong. There could be many other reasons the companies are responsible. Look for an answer that describes the error of assuming that disproving a premise is the same as disproving the conclusion.