Summarize Argument
The legislator concludes that the sale of FerroMetal should be prohibited. He supports this by saying that manufacturing is crucial to the economy, so the country needs a reliable supply of iron ore. And if a foreign company buys FerroMetal, it would lead to more foreign control over iron mining, eventually making it impossible for manufacturers to rely on domestic iron ore.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The legislator assumes that selling FerroMetal would lead to foreign control over iron mining, which would make it impossible for manufacturers to rely on domestic iron ore. But he doesn’t give any evidence that the sale of FerroMetal would actually cause this chain of consequences, nor does he consider other possible outcomes.
A
The argument draws a conclusion that simply restates a premise presented in support of that conclusion.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the argument’s conclusion merely restates one of its premises. The legislator doesn’t make this mistake. His premises don’t support his conclusion well, but they are distinct from his conclusion.
B
The argument takes for granted that what is true of one particular industry is true of industry in general.
The legislator doesn’t assume that what’s true of the iron industry is true of industry in general. Instead, he assumes that the sale of FerroMetal will lead to a long chain of consequences within the iron industry.
C
The argument defends a practice solely on the grounds that the practice is widely accepted.
The legislator argues that the sale should be prohibited, but not on the grounds that prohibiting the sale is widely accepted. Instead, he argues that the sale should be prohibited because it will lead to a chain of negative consequences for iron companies and manufacturers.
D
The argument presents a chain of possible consequences of a given event as if it were the only possible chain of consequences of that event.
The legislator assumes that the sale of FerroMetal will inevitably lead to a chain of possible consequences. He never provides any evidence that it will actually cause these consequences, nor does he consider other potential outcomes.
E
The argument concludes that one event would cause a second event even though the second event would have to precede the first.
The legislator argues that the sale of FerroMetal would cause multiple other events, but there’s no reason to believe that those events would have to precede the sale of FerroMetal.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Ullman concludes that Plato’s argument that music should be restricted because it can manipulate the emotions is misguided. He supports this by saying that musicians seek to create beauty, not to manipulate the emotions.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Ullman fails to consider the possibility that music can still manipulate the emotions, even though musicians simply seek to create beauty. In other words, just because musicians don’t intend to manipulate the emotions, doesn't mean that their music doesn’t do so. If it does manipulate the emotions, Plato’s argument might not be misguided.
A
what musicians intend their music to do and what it actually does are different
Ullman implicitly assumes that music doesn’t manipulate the emotions, simply because musicians do not intend to manipulate the emotions. He overlooks the possibility that musicians’ intentions for their music might be different from the actual effects of their music.
B
those with the power to censor music would not censor other forms of expression
Ullman doesn’t say anything about who has the power to censor music. Regardless, whether these people would censor other forms of expression is irrelevant. Ullman is only addressing the restriction of music.
C
there are other, more convincing arguments for allowing the censorship of music
This is true, but it doesn't matter because Ullman is only addressing Plato’s argument for allowing the censorship of music. He concludes that Plato’s argument is misguided; whether other arguments are more convincing is irrelevant.
D
other forms of art have more potential to be harmful to society than music has
Both Plato and Ullman are only addressing whether music manipulates the emotions and should be restricted. Whether other forms of art are more harmful than music is irrelevant.
E
artists who are trying to manipulate people’s emotions to control them are not likely to admit it
Even if some artists are trying to manipulate people’s emotions and don’t admit it, this wouldn’t affect Ullman’s argument. We have to accept his premise that “musicians seek not to manipulate the emotions but to create beauty.”