Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a family business is a family’s surest road to financial prosperity. This is based on the fact that in a business whose owners and employees are all part of a family, the employees can be paid exceptionally low wages. This allow general operating expenses to be lower than they would be for non-family business, which makes profits higher.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that paying family members exceptionally low wages is something that might undermine a family’s financial prosperity. Although profits might be higher for the family, if family members get lower wages, that might counteract the higher profits and leave the family in no better an economic position.
A
ignores the fact that businesses that achieve high levels of customer satisfaction are often profitable even if they pay high wages
The author never assumed that businesses that pay high wages can’t be profitable. His position is simply that paying exceptionally low wages can help a business become more profitable than it otherwise would be.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that businesses that pay the lowest wages have the lowest general operating expenses and thus the highest profits
This is too extreme. The author does assume that paying low wages leads to lower expenses and higher profits, but that doesn’t mean the business that pays the “lowest” wages has the “lowest” expenses or the “highest” profits.
C
ignores the fact that in a family business, paying family members low wages may itself reduce the family’s prosperity
The author overlooks the fact that paying family members exceptionally low wages might reduce family prosperity, which might cancel out whatever extra profits can be gained in a family business. The overall $ brought in might not be higher if you pay family low wages.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that family members are willing to work for low wages in a family business because they believe that doing so promotes the family’s prosperity
The author doesn’t make any assumptions about employees’ intentions. Maybe they are willing to work for low wages because otherwise they’ll be punished by their parents? The author doesn’t have to think they want to make money for the family.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that only businesses with low general operating expenses can succeed
The author doesn’t take a position on whether only businesses with low general operating expenses can succeed. Maybe other kinds of businesses can succeed, too, but just not as easily or as much.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that no wealthy person should be on the Grandville Planning Committee because some wealthy Grandville citizens have been criminals, and the committee must only include people with unquestionable personal ethics.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization, where The author makes a broad generalization about an entire group based on evidence about only some members of that group. He assumes that, just because some wealthy Grandville citizens have been criminals, no wealthy person should be on the committee.
A
confuses a result with something that is sufficient for bringing about that result
The author simply doesn’t make this mistake. He never addresses the result of appointing wealthy people or criminals to the committee at all.
B
mistakes a temporal relationship for a causal relationship
The author doesn't do this. His argument doesn't address a temporal or a causal relationship between anything. That is, he doesn’t say what caused some wealthy people to be criminals or what might happen if they are appointed to the committee.
C
assumes that because a certain action has a certain result the person taking that action intended that result
Like (A), the author never addresses the results of appointing wealthy people or criminals to the committee at all. He also never mentions anyone’s intentions.
D
judges only by subjective standards something that can be readily evaluated according to objective standards
The claim that some wealthy citizens are criminals is objective. However, the claims about who should be appointed to the committee are somewhat subjective; they can’t readily be evaluated objectively. So, the author doesn’t make this mistake.
E
generalizes on the basis of what could be exceptional cases
The author broadly generalizes about all wealthy Grandville citizens based on evidence about only some of them. Those wealthy Grandville citizens who are criminals could be exceptional cases; that is, there may be only a few of them.
Summarize Argument
The author wants to convince us that we should vote. That conclusion isn’t outright stated, but the rest of the argument supports it. The author tells us that if no one voted, democracy would fail and society would crumble. Why is that relevant when considering a single vote? Because any action which would be harmful if lots of people did it is also wrong for any individual to do. This principle is supported with the analogy of dishonesty: not too impactful on a small scale, but we still consider it wrong.
Broken down, the logic looks like: actions that would be bad for everyone to do are wrong for individuals; not voting is such an action. So (implied), not voting is wrong.
Broken down, the logic looks like: actions that would be bad for everyone to do are wrong for individuals; not voting is such an action. So (implied), not voting is wrong.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion in this argument is implied, not explicitly stated: citizens should exercise their right to vote.
A
People in a democracy should not neglect to vote.
This is exactly the author’s point. Even though it’s implied rather than stated, the premises establish that it’s wrong not to vote. In other words, people should vote (or “not neglect to vote”).
B
Dishonest acts and failure to vote are equally damaging.
The argument does not support drawing an exact equivalence between dishonesty and not voting. Dishonesty is an analogy used to support the rule about when relatively low-impact actions can still be wrong. All we know is that single similarity with not voting.
C
There is a risk that individual antisocial acts will be imitated by others.
The author never talks about imitation. The principle in the argument is that individual actions can be wrong depending on the possible consequences if everyone did the same. It’s hypothetical, not a claim that everyone will do the same.
D
A single person’s vote or wrongful act can in fact make a great deal of difference.
This is not stated in the argument. The author is only talking about individual acts that don’t make much difference on their own.
E
Large-scale dishonesty and neglect of public duty will be destructive of democratic and other societies.
This claim about dishonesty is only used as an analogy to support the author’s rule about when low-impact actions might still be wrong. This supports other parts of the argument, and is not supported itself, making it a premise.