Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The researcher concludes that certain makes of car are more common in different regions of the nation. Why? Because the researcher hypothesized that if that conclusion was true, then many people would overestimate the national commonness of their own cars—and this was the very result found by a study, thus supporting the hypothesis.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The researcher concludes that a hypothesis is true based on evidence that supports that hypothesis. However, the hypothesis could still be false, because support for a hypothesis doesn’t guarantee that it’s true. The researcher doesn’t account for the possibility of alternative explanations for the result, for example.
A
The argument fails to estimate the likelihood that most subjects in the experiment did not know the actual statistics about how common their make of car is nationwide.
The likelihood that most of the study participants were unaware of the actual commonness of their make of car is irrelevant to the argument. The argument is about whether different cars are more common in different regions, not about people’s car stats knowledge.
B
The argument treats a result that supports a hypothesis as a result that proves a hypothesis.
The researcher concludes that a hypothesis is true merely based on a premise that supports the hypothesis. This is a flaw because a hypothesis can have some support and still be false, for example if the same evidence is consistent with multiple explanations.
C
The argument fails to take into account the possibility that the subject pool may come from a wide variety of geographical regions.
Whether or not the subject pool comes from a variety of regions isn’t relevant, because the argument’s evidence just depends on most participants overestimating how common their car is.
D
The argument attempts to draw its main conclusion from a set of premises that are mutually contradictory.
The researcher does not use any premises that contradict each other in this argument.
E
The argument applies a statistical generalization to a particular case to which it was not intended to apply.
The argument doesn’t apply a generalization to a particular case. It’s more that the researcher is trying to make a generalization about car distribution across the nation based on a different generalization about how common people think their make of car is.
Summarize Argument
The counselor argues that harsh criticism is necessary to cause someone to change. Why? Firstly, a motive is necessary to cause someone to change. Secondly, unpleasant criticism provides a motive to change, and harsh criticism is unpleasant. This leads to the sub-conclusion that harsh criticism provides a motive to change.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter flaw: confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The counselor’s premises establish that harsh criticism is sufficient to motivate a change. However, the counselor concludes from this that harsh criticism is necessary for change. The incorrect inference here is that harsh criticism is necessary for motivation (with motivation being necessary for change).
A
infers that something that is sufficient to provide a motive is necessary to provide a motive
The counselor establishes that harsh criticism is sufficient for motivation, but concludes that harsh criticism is necessary for change. We know that motivation is necessary for change, so the conclusion only works by inferring that harsh criticism is necessary for motivation.
B
fails to address the possibility that in some cases the primary goal of criticism is something other than bringing about change in the person being criticized
The counselor isn’t concerned with criticism that has a goal other than bringing about change. The argument only concerns the relationship between types of criticism and change.
C
takes for granted that everyone who is motivated to change will change
The counselor doesn’t claim that motivation is a sufficient condition for change, only a necessary condition.
D
confuses a motive for doing something with a motive for avoiding something
The counselor never brings up or relies on the idea of a motive for avoiding something.
E
takes the refutation of an argument to be sufficient to show that the argument’s conclusion is false
The counselor never considers another argument which has been refuted, and certainly doesn’t claim that the conclusion of a refuted argument is false.