Whatever one's views may be about this author, his publication, the CB, or testing issues in general, I don't see how he is being misleading about this CB report.
I'll quote again from the report
Those students who met the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark had a
number of critically important academic characteristics that must be shared by all
students if our nation is to make meaningful gains in educational attainment.
This year’s report highlights characteristics of these students to help demonstrate
successful patterns that can be replicated in schools and districts throughout the country.
How does one read that any way other than as suggesting that increasing these characterstics will improve outcomes? Where is that jump from correlation to causation (despite many obvious possible objections) justified in the report? The NR post is just an opinion journalism piece mocking the CB report, which, frankly, deserves it.
Suspecting that any organization might have ulterior motives in publishing a poorly supported argument as to why people should use more of their products "for the children" hardly seems to match the definition of the furtive fallacy.
Is there a name for a variation of the fallacist's fallacy where the suggested fallacy is being misapplied?
