Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The executive concludes that critics are wrong about her communications devices being dangerously distracting. She supports this by saying that drivers who want to use communications devices will do so regardless, and that these devices are safer because they are easier to use.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The executive makes the unwarranted assumption that the devices are safer just because they're easier to use. But even if they are safer than other devices, she still doesn't address the critics' concern that they are dangerously distracting, nor does she give any reason to believe that they are not dangerously distracting. The fact that they're easier to use and that drivers will use them anyway doesn't change the fact that they might still be dangerously distracting.
A
attempts to apply a general principle to a situation to which that principle is not applicable
The executive doesn’t attempt to apply any principle at all. She also doesn’t wrongly apply a generalization to a specific situation. Instead, she draws a conclusion about the communications devices based on premises that are also about the communications devices.
B
fails to address the substantive point of the criticism that it is responding to
The executive fails to address the critics’ main point: that the communications devices are dangerously distracting. Just because they're easier to use and drivers will use them anyway doesn't change the fact that they might still be dangerously distracting.
C
treats a condition that is necessary to establish its conclusion as one that is sufficient to establish that conclusion
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The executive doesn’t make this mistake; her argument doesn’t rely on conditional logic. Instead, she counters the critics’ position without actually addressing their criticism.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that all communications devices are the same with respect to driver distraction
Actually, the executive explicitly claims that her communications devices are safer with respect to driver distraction. She doesn’t assume that all devices are the same.
E
is based on premises that presume the truth of the argument’s conclusion
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning. The executive doesn’t make this mistake. Her premises may not support her conclusion well, but they are distinct from her conclusion.
Galindo: I disagree. An oil industry background is no guarantee of success. Look no further than Pod Oil’s last chief executive, who had decades of oil industry experience but steered the company to the brink of bankruptcy.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Galindo argues that Simpson’s lack of experience in the oil industry doesn’t disqualify him as a chief executive candidate. He offers two premises:
(1) Having a background in the oil industry doesn’t guarantee success.
(2) The last chief executive was unsuccessful despite their background in the oil industry.
(1) Having a background in the oil industry doesn’t guarantee success.
(2) The last chief executive was unsuccessful despite their background in the oil industry.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. Fremont argues that having oil industry experience is a necessary condition for being a successful chief executive. Instead of arguing against this claim, Galindo argues that having an oil industry background isn’t a sufficient condition for a chief executive to be successful. Fremont never claimed that an oil background was sufficient, though—he just said it was necessary. Galindo doesn’t address Fremont’s actual argument, so his disagreement with Fremont is unsupported.
A
fails to justify its presumption that Fremont’s objection is based on personal bias
Galindo does not presume that Fremont’s objection is based on personal bias, so no such justification would be necessary.
B
fails to distinguish between relevant experience and irrelevant experience
It isn’t necessary for Galindo to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant experience, because both Fremont and Galindo limit their arguments to discussions of relevant experience (a background in the oil industry).
C
rests on a confusion between whether an attribute is necessary for success and whether that attribute is sufficient for success
This is the cookie-cutter flaw in Galindo’s argument. Fremont argues that an oil industry background is necessary for success; Galindo counters that such a background is not sufficient to ensure success. Galindo mistakes Fremont’s necessary condition for a sufficient condition.
D
bases a conclusion that an attribute is always irrelevant to success on evidence that it is sometimes irrelevant to success
Galindo does not conclude that an oil industry background is always irrelevant to success. He states that such a background does not necessarily guarantee success, but he doesn’t suggest that oil industry experience is always irrelevant to success.
E
presents only one instance of a phenomenon as the basis for a broad generalization about that phenomenon
Galindo’s example successfully proves that an oil industry background doesn’t guarantee success, so the efficacy of his example or the fact that he only offers one isn’t a flaw. Rather, the flaw is that the claim his example proves does not actually respond to Fremont’s argument.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that that there’s reason to think that medieval peasants were not deeply dedicated to religion. This is because the recordkeepers who recorded the religious devotion of peasants were members of the clergy, who we would expect to exaggerate peasants’ level of religious dedication.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the recordkeepers actually exaggerated peasants’ level of religious dedication. (This overlooks the possibility that, even though we might expect them to have a motive to exaggerate dedication, they did not in fact exaggerate in their records.)
A
Among the written records produced by clergy in medieval Europe and currently available to historians are a number of documents detailing nonreligious, as well as religious, activities of peasants.
The author never assumed that clergy only recorded religious activities of peasants. The assumption is that the level of religious dedication was exaggerated; but this allows for plenty of records related to nonreligious things.
B
Many members of the clergy in medieval Europe spent more time among peasants than among people of any other social class.
This has no clear impact. We don’t know how the amount of time spent among peasants relates to the possibility that clergy exaggerated the level of peasants’ religious dedication.
C
Written records produced by clergy in medieval Europe very rarely portray merchants or nobles as being dedicated to religion.
This undermines the assumption that the clergy exaggerated peasants’ religious dedication. We would expect clergy to exaggerate other peoples’ dedication, too. But if they didn’t exaggerate for merchants/nobles, that suggests they might not have exaggerated for peasants, too.
D
Historians cannot develop a reliable account of the religious attitudes held during any given historical period unless they have consulted all of the relevant surviving records from that period.
This has no clear impact. We don’t know whether historians have consulted all relevant surviving records. Also, even if historians can’t develop a reliable account, that’s consistent with the author’s position that we have reason to doubt the prevailing view.
E
Documents produced by clergy in medieval Europe contain detailed descriptions of participation by peasants and others in religious activities.
The author already recognizes this possibility. His position is that these descriptions are likely to be exaggerations.