Espinoza: The mayor will not get her road repair proposal passed because it is more important to her that taxes not increase.
Speaker 1 Summary
Durham concludes that the mayor will agree to a tax increase. This is because a tax increase is the only way the city council will agree to the mayor’s road repair proposal, and that proposal is the mayor’s top priority.
Speaker 2 Summary
Espinoza concludes that the mayor will not get the road repair proposal passed, because the mayor finds avoiding a tax increase more important than getting the proposal passed. Espinoza’s assumptions are that Espinoza will not agree to the tax increase and that such agreement is required in order to get the road repair proposal passed.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of agreement. The speakers agree that the mayor’s agreement to the tax increase is required in order to get the road repair proposal passed.
A
The mayor will agree to a tax increase.
This is a point of disagreement. Durham thinks the mayor will agree. Espinoza thinks the mayor won’t.
B
The only way that the city council will agree to pass the mayor’s road repair proposal is if she agrees to a tax increase.
This is a point of agreement. Durham directly states this. Espinoza assumes this. Espinoza believes the mayor won’t agree to the tax increase, and that this failure to agree implies that the road repair proposal won’t be passed.
C
The mayor’s road repair proposal is her top priority.
This is a point of disagreement. Durham thinks it is the mayor’s top priority. Espinoza thinks it isn’t.
D
The mayor will not get her road repair proposal passed.
Durham expresses no opinion about this. Durham believes the mayor will agree to the tax increase, which is a necessary condition for the council’s passage of the proposal. But Durham doesn’t indicate whether the proposal will or won’t pass.
E
It is more important to the mayor that taxes not increase than it is that her road repair proposal passes.
This is a point of disagreement. Durham thinks the road repair proposal is a higher priority. Espinoza thinks avoiding a tax increase is a higher priority.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The philosopher concludes that it’s untrue that most university students today have no interest in philosophical issues. Her premise is that university students who attend her talks are deeply interested in philosophical issues.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of basing a conclusion about a group on information from an unrepresentative sample. Students attending a philosopher’s talk are likely to be interested in philosophical issues! That doesn’t tell us much about the broader student body’s interest levels.
A
uses the term “interest” in two different ways when the argument requires that it be used consistently throughout
This is a cookie-cutter flaw, but it isn’t present in the philosopher’s argument. Here, the meaning of the term “interest” remains consistent throughout.
B
treats a group as representative of a larger group when there is reason to believe it is unrepresentative
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of basing a conclusion about a group on information from an unrepresentative sample. Students attending a philosopher’s talk are likely to be more interested in philosophical issues than are members of the broader student body!
C
appeals to the popularity of an academic field as evidence of the worth of that academic field
The philosopher’s argument doesn’t mention or depend on the worth of any academic field.
D
takes for granted that just because there is no evidence that interest in something is decreasing, it must be increasing
The philosopher doesn’t claim that interest in philosophical issues is increasing among university students.
E
takes for granted that it is good that university students have an interest in a certain subject just because the person making the argument has that interest
The philosopher doesn’t take for granted that university students have an interest in philosophical issues. She has observed this interest in the students who attend her talks.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The editorial concludes that the nation is not in decline. The support for this conclusion is that essay-writers who claim that the nation is in decline write in anxious tones, which allegedly demonstrates that their claims are influenced by the authors’ own anxieties and therefore do not accurately reflect the nation’s condition.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the source of the argument, wherein the author attacks the person or group making the argument instead of going after the argument itself. In this case, the editorial criticizes the psychological states of the writers who claim that the nation is in decline instead of giving any reason to believe that their claims are false. The nation could be declining whether or not these essays are written in an anxious tone!
A
The editorial dismisses a claim without considering any reasons presented in arguments for that claim.
The editorial bases its entire argument on an analysis of the essays’ tones and their authors’ psychological states, rather than presenting any counter-points to the essays’ actual claims. The nation could be declining whether or not the authors are anxious!
B
The editorial compares two situations without considering the obvious differences between them.
This is descriptively inaccurate. The editorial doesn’t compare any situations without considering their differences—the one possible comparison is between the authors’ psychological states and the condition of the nation, and the editorial claims to find a difference there.
C
The editorial confuses claims about a cultural decline with claims about a political decline.
The editorial does not name the type of decline in question, and therefore does not confuse claims about different types of declines.
D
The editorial overlooks the possibility that the nation is neither thriving nor in decline.
The editorial does not argue that the nation is thriving; rather, it concludes that the nation is not in decline. This leaves open the possibility that the nation is neither thriving nor in decline.
E
The editorial dismisses a particular view while offering evidence that actually supports that view.
The evidence doesn’t necessarily support any view on the nation’s condition. It’s possible that the authors’ anxious tones are evidence that they fear the nation’s real decline, but it’s also possible that the tones are alarmist or unrelated to the condition of the nation.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that people’s desire to domesticate animals caused them to develop language. Her premise is that cooperative activities like animal domestication require a sophisticated means of communication such as language.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a “correlation doesn’t imply causation” flaw, where the author sees a correlation and concludes that one thing caused the other without ruling out alternative hypotheses. Specifically, she overlooks two key alternatives:
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe people only thought of domesticating animals because they had developed language and could collectively brainstorm ways to make life easier!
(2) Some other factor could be causing the correlation—maybe human brains had developed to the point where animal domestication and language development were both possible for the first time!
(1) The causal relationship could be reversed—maybe people only thought of domesticating animals because they had developed language and could collectively brainstorm ways to make life easier!
(2) Some other factor could be causing the correlation—maybe human brains had developed to the point where animal domestication and language development were both possible for the first time!
A
conflates being necessary for the development of a phenomenon with guaranteeing the development of that phenomenon
The author doesn’t say that language is necessary for animal domestication. Rather, she claims that a sophisticated mean of communication is necessary, and language is one example of such. Further, the author doesn’t argue that language guarantees the domestication of animals.
B
takes for granted that every phenomenon has a unique cause
The author makes no general claims about the causes of all phenomenons. She also doesn’t even argue that language developed as the result of a unique cause—she just says animal domestication was the primary one!
C
infers that the development of one phenomenon caused the development of another merely because the two phenomena developed around the same time
The author doesn’t use temporal proximity as a premise in her argument—she doesn’t even explicitly state that language and animal domestication developed around the same time!
D
draws a conclusion that merely restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion
The author’s conclusion (that language developed primarily to facilitate animal domestication) is different from her premises (that animal domestication is cooperative and cooperative activities require sophisticated means of communication like language).
E
assumes that if something serves a purpose it must have developed in order to serve that purpose
This is a correlation/causation flaw. The author assumes that, because language provided the sophisticated means of communication required to domesticate animals, the desire for animal domestication caused language development. Maybe language developed for another reason!