Summarize Argument
The author concludes that there are no universal truths and the world is full of irregular events. She supports this by saying that the postmodern view rejects ideas of order and universal truth, emphasizing instead a belief in chaos and irregularity.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter “fact vs. belief” flaw, where the author incorrectly assumes that because a large group of people believe something to be true, it must be a factual reality. In short, she essentially claims, “Postmodernists believe X. Therefore, X is true.”
On top of this, the author subtly contradicts herself. By claiming that there are no universal truths, the author attempts to make a universally true claim.
A
infers that something is the case because it is believed to be the case
The author infers that the postmodern view is factually the case, simply because it is believed to be the case. But other people’s belief in the view is not evidence that it is actually correct or true.
B
uses the term “universal” ambiguously
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation,” where the author uses one term to mean multiple different things. But the other uses “universal” consistently, and (B) doesn’t describe the flaw in her argument.
C
relies on the use of emotional terms to bolster its conclusion
The author mistakes belief for fact, but she isn’t relying on emotional terms to strengthen her conclusion or manipulate her audience.
D
uses the term “order” ambiguously
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation,” where the author uses one term to mean multiple different things. But the other uses “order” consistently, and (D) doesn’t describe the flaw in her argument.
E
fails to cite examples of modern theories that purport to embody universal truths
It’s true that the author doesn’t provide examples of modern theories, but this doesn’t weaken her argument, so it can’t be the flaw. Her conclusion is about the postmodern view; she only refers to the modern view contextually.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes gasohol should get more use. Why? Because plants can remove the amount of carbon dioxide gasohol produces, gasohol has a higher octane rating than gasoline, and burning gasohol emits less carbon monoxide than burning gasoline.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that gasohol and gasoline would be used for the same purpose, and that there’s no advantage to using gasoline over gasohol that outweighs the apparent benefits of gasohol.
A
Cars run less well on gasoline than they do on gasohol.
This strengthens the argument by ruling out a potential weakness of gasohol. It’s another reason to favor gasohol over straight gasoline.
B
Since less gasoline is needed with the use of gasohol, an energy shortage is less likely.
This strengthens the argument by providing another advantage to gasohol: it would save on gasoline usage, reducing the risk of an energy shortage.
C
Cars burn on the average slightly more gasohol per kilometer than they do gasoline.
This is a disadvantage to using gasohol, not an advantage. It implies drivers will have to refill their vehicles more often if gasohol is used widely.
D
Gasohol is cheaper to produce and hence costs less at the pump than gasoline.
This strengthens the argument by ruling out a potential weakness. It eliminates the possibility that gasohol is more expensive than gasoline.
E
Burning gasoline adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants can remove.
This strengthens the argument by implying gasohol—which adds less carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants can remove—produces less carbon dioxide than gasoline. It’s an advantage to making the switch.