Question 1 what is the best evaluation of this argument? "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."

The best evaluation would be that the statement is invalid because we cannot be sure if the argument is referring to the same provost. The whole paragraph is a fallacy. It was not directly stated that James Hoopster was the provost who saved the university from crisis. It just so happened that James Hoopster took the same path as to the provost who saved the university.