A recent survey showed that 50 percent of people polled believe that elected officials should resign if indicted for a crime, whereas 35 percent believe that elected officials should resign only if they are convicted of a crime. Therefore, more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe that they should resign if convicted.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that more people hold the belief “elected officials should resign if indicted” than the belief “elected officials should resign IF convicted.” This is based on a a survey that showed 50% of those polled believe “elected officials should resign if indicted,” and that 35% believe “elected officials should resign ONLY IF convicted.”

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author mistakenly interprets the results showing that 35% believe “elected officials should resign ONLY IF convicted” as if they show that 35% believe “elected officials should resign IF convicted.” In other words, the author confuses a statement about what’s necessary for resignation with a statement about what is sufficient for resignation. “Only if” introduces a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.

A
draws a conclusion about the population in general based only on a sample of that population
There’s nothing inherently flawed about drawing a conclusion based on a sample. What would be flawed is relying on an unrepresentative sample, but that’s not what (A) says. In any case, we don’t have any reason to think the sample is unrepresentative.
B
confuses a sufficient condition with a required condition
The relevant survey results refer to a belief that conviction is necessary for resignation. But the author mistakenly thinks this result tells us about the belief that conviction is sufficient for resignation. This confuses a necessary condition — resignation — for a sufficient condition.
C
is based on an ambiguity of one of its terms
There is no ambiguity in any of the words used in the argument. The author does not confuse different meanings of the same term. The issue is the author misinterprets a belief that conviction is necessary for resignation as a belief that convication is sufficient for resignation.
D
draws a conclusion about a specific belief based on responses to queries about two different specific beliefs
The conclusion compares the number of people who hold two beliefs. This isn’t a conclusion “about a specific belief.” Also, although the premises involve two beliefs, one of them matches a belief mentioned in the conclusion. So there aren’t “two different specific beliefs.”
E
contains premises that cannot all be true
There is nothing contradictory about the premises. It is possible for 50% to believe officials should resign if indicted and for 35% to believe officials should resign only if convicted.

78 comments

Political candidates’ speeches are loaded with promises and with expressions of good intention, but one must not forget that the politicians’ purpose in giving these speeches is to get themselves elected. Clearly, then, these speeches are selfishly motivated and the promises made in them are unreliable.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that politicians’ speeches are selfishly motivated and their promises are unreliable. She supports this by saying that their main goal in giving speeches is to get elected.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the person or group making an argument instead of the argument itself.

Here, the author assumes politicians' promises are unreliable just because they have other motives for making those promises. However, having ulterior motives doesn't necessarily make a promise unreliable.

A
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that if a person’s promise is not selfishly motivated then that promise is reliable.

The author assumes the opposite of (A). She assumes, without providing justification, that if a person’s promise is selfishly motivated then that promise is unreliable.

B
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that promises made for selfish reasons are never kept.

The author assumes, without providing justification, that promises made with ulterior motives are unreliable. She doesn’t claim that the promises are never kept, just that they can’t be relied upon. Perhaps some of these promises are still kept, even though they’re unreliable.

C
The argument confuses the effect of an action with its cause.

The author’s argument doesn’t use causal reasoning at all, so she never confuses an effect with a cause.

D
The argument overlooks the fact that a promise need not be unreliable just because the person who made it had an ulterior motive for doing so.

In other words, the author overlooks the fact that a promise could still be reliable, even though the person who made it had an ulterior motive for doing so. Having ulterior motives doesn't necessarily make a promise unreliable.

E
The argument overlooks the fact that a candidate who makes promises for selfish reasons may nonetheless be worthy of the office for which he or she is running.

The author never makes any claims about whether candidates who make promises for selfish reasons are worthy of their office. She just claims that their promises are unreliable.


10 comments

Ethicist: On average, animals raised on grain must be fed sixteen pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. A pound of meat is more nutritious for humans than a pound of grain, but sixteen pounds of grain could feed many more people than could a pound of meat. With grain yields leveling off, large areas of farmland going out of production each year, and the population rapidly expanding, we must accept the fact that consumption of meat will soon be morally unacceptable.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that meat consumption will soon be immoral. This is because meat production is more resource-intensive than the plant-based alternative, and already agricultural resources are diminishing while the human population continues expanding.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that crops that feed animals can be efficiently used to feed humans, and that the land on which animals are raised could be used to grow those same crops. The author also assumes that because animal agriculture has undesirable consequences, the mere practice of eating meat is itself morally unacceptable. The author therefore assumes that all forms of meat consumption exhibit the same problems found in the animal agriculture he describes.

A
Even though it has been established that a vegetarian diet can be healthy, many people prefer to eat meat and are willing to pay for it.
It doesn’t matter what people “prefer.” The author is drawing a moral judgement about what people should do.
B
Often, cattle or sheep can be raised to maturity on grass from pastureland that is unsuitable for any other kind of farming.
Certain types of animals are raised with resources that couldn’t be put towards direct human use. Thus, the author’s argument glosses over an entire category of meat consumption while drawing a moral conclusion about meat consumption, generally.
C
If a grain diet is supplemented with protein derived from non-animal sources, it can have nutritional value equivalent to that of a diet containing meat.
If anything, this strengthens the author’s argument by showing that plant-based diets can satisfy humanity’s nutritional needs. We need to weaken his argument.
D
Although prime farmland near metropolitan areas is being lost rapidly to suburban development, we could reverse this trend by choosing to live in areas that are already urban.
Even if this trend could be reversed, we have no reason to believe it actually will be reversed. This doesn’t challenge anything in the author’s argument.
E
Nutritionists agree that a diet composed solely of grain products is not adequate for human health.
The author never said humans should only eat grains. He simply claimed eating meat will soon be morally unacceptable.

46 comments