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: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The legislator hypothesizes that voters don’t like the highway bill. She bases this on a correlation: the majority party both supported the bill’s passage and is predicted to lose more than a dozen seats in the upcoming election.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a “correlation doesn’t imply causation” flaw, where the legislator sees a correlation and concludes that one thing causes the other without ruling out alternative hypotheses. Specifically, she overlooks two key alternatives:
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe the majority party’s unpopularity caused them to support the highway bill. Maybe the party supported the popular highway bill as a result of their poor poll performance!
(2) Some other factor could be causing the correlation—maybe the majority party is unpopular for other reasons and they also happen to support the highway bill!
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe the majority party’s unpopularity caused them to support the highway bill. Maybe the party supported the popular highway bill as a result of their poor poll performance!
(2) Some other factor could be causing the correlation—maybe the majority party is unpopular for other reasons and they also happen to support the highway bill!
A
gives no reason to think that the predicted election outcome would be different if the majority party had not supported the bill
This describes the legislator’s cookie-cutter “correlation proves causation” error. The legislator fails to establish that the majority party’s support of the bill is what caused the predicted election outcome. What if the party is unpopular for entirely unrelated reasons?
B
focuses on the popularity of the bill to the exclusion of its merit
The bill’s merit is not relevant to the legislator’s argument. She is focused on the bill’s popularity, not its actual content.
C
infers that the bill is unpopular from a claim that presupposes its unpopularity
The legislator does not presuppose the bill’s unpopularity; rather, she attempts to demonstrate it by introducing the information that a party that supported the bill is itself unpopular. (C) describes a “circular reasoning” flaw, which is not the error the legislator commits.
D
takes for granted that the bill is unpopular just because the legislator wishes it to be unpopular
The legislator gives no indication that she wishes the bill to be unpopular. For all we know, she could be a member of the majority party and a supporter of the bill!
E
bases its conclusion on the views of voters without establishing their relevant expertise on the issues involved
The legislator’s conclusion is entirely about voters’ views, regardless of the merits of these views or the voters’ qualifications to hold them. Her argument doesn’t rely at all on establishing the voters’ relevant expertise, so it doesn’t matter that she does not do this.
Warrington: Although the study of classical works is essential to the liberal arts, a classics department isn’t, since other departments often engage in that study.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Lopez concludes that our university is not committed to liberal arts. He bases this on the fact that the university closed the classics department. To Lopez, studying classics is necessary for studying liberal arts.
Warrington agrees that studying classics is necessary for liberal arts, but points out that other departments besides the classics department involve studying classics. (The implication is that Lopez’s argument isn’t convincing, because the closing of the classics department does not show that the university isn’t committed to liberal arts.)
Warrington agrees that studying classics is necessary for liberal arts, but points out that other departments besides the classics department involve studying classics. (The implication is that Lopez’s argument isn’t convincing, because the closing of the classics department does not show that the university isn’t committed to liberal arts.)
Describe Method of Reasoning
Warrington points out that an assumption Lopez made (that the classics department is the only department that studies classics) is wrong.
A
offering additional reasons in favor of the conclusion of Lopez’s argument
Warrington undermines an assumption in Lopez’s argument. He doesn’t support Lopez’s conclusion.
B
claiming that the reasoning in Lopez’s argument rests on an illicit appeal to tradition
Warrington does not claim that Lopez’s argument rests on an appeal to tradition. (Appeal to tradition involves arguing that we should do something because it’s always been done that way.)
C
mounting a direct challenge to the conclusion of Lopez’s argument
There’s no direct challenge to Lopez’s conclusion. His point is that the closing of the classic department isn’t enough to prove Lopez’s conclusion. This isn’t a direct challenge, which would require him to argue that our university IS committed to liberal arts.
D
responding to a possible objection to the reasoning in Lopez’s argument
Warrington criticizes Lopez’s argument. He does not defend Lopez’s argument from a criticism.
E
presenting a consideration in order to undermine the reasoning in Lopez’s argument
Warrington presents a consideration (that other departments study classics) to show that Lopez’s premises (the classics department was closed, and classics is crucial to liberal arts) does not prove his conclusion (that the university doesn’t care about liberal arts).