Summary
The author concludes that the city council does not have the objective of preserving the quality and availability of local rentals. Why? Because the following:
The city council recently passed a rent-control ordinance.
A recent study shows that rent control increases the price and lowers the quality and availability of rental units.
The city council recently passed a rent-control ordinance.
A recent study shows that rent control increases the price and lowers the quality and availability of rental units.
Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts something about the city council’s purpose (objective). But the premises don’t say anything that establishes whether the city council has or doesn’t have the purpose of preserving the quality and availability of local rentals.
Even though the study shows that rent control will hurt the quality and availability of rentals, there’s no evidence that the city council believed that the study was accurate or was even aware of the study. To make the argument valid, we want to establish that the passage of the rent-control ordinance, in light of the recent study, allows us infer the council knew the rent-control ordinance would harm the quality/availability of local rentals.
Even though the study shows that rent control will hurt the quality and availability of rentals, there’s no evidence that the city council believed that the study was accurate or was even aware of the study. To make the argument valid, we want to establish that the passage of the rent-control ordinance, in light of the recent study, allows us infer the council knew the rent-control ordinance would harm the quality/availability of local rentals.
A
The recent study of local rent-control ordinances was conducted by impartial investigators.
(A) helps establish the reliability of the study. But it doesn’t establish that the city council knew about the study’s results or believed its findings. So it doesn’t establish anything about the city council’s objectives.
B
Rent control is not an appropriate topic for consideration by the city council.
What is or is not appropriate for the city council to consider does not establish anything about the city council’s objectives.
C
The members of the city council who voted for rent control agree with the study’s conclusions about rent control.
(C) establishes that the people who voted for the ordinance were aware of and agreed with the study’s conclusions. That establishes that the council’s objective was not to preserve the quality and availability of local rentals. After all, they knew that the ordinance would decrease the quality/availability of rentals, yet still passed it.
D
Some members of the city council who voted for rent control stand to profit from rent control.
The fact some members will profit from rent control does not establish that they voted to pass rent control for self-interested reasons. These members might have thought the rent control would increase the quality and availability of rentals.
E
The city council sometimes acts in an arbitrary and irrational manner.
The fact the council sometimes acts in an arbitrary/irrational manner doesn’t establish that with respect to this ordiance, it acted in an arbitrary/irrational manner.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Professor Thomas says Professor York is too flamboyant and confrontational in the classroom. The author implicitly calls this claim into question by citing the fact that Thomas’s claim is self-serving. Thomas is not as good a presenter as York, so Thomas’s criticism of York may simply be a result of envy.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author attacks Professor Thomas’s motivation rather than the merits of his claim. Whether Thomas is venting his frustration or otherwise making comments due to envy or out of self-interest has nothing to do with the truth of whether Professor York is actually too flamboyant or confrontational in the classroom.
A
confuses the distinction between being overly confrontational and engaging students by entertaining them
The author doesn’t mistake being too confrontational with being entertaining. There’s no sign that the author thinks one type of behavior is the same as the other.
B
presupposes the point it is attempting to establish
(B) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion, which is an implicit questioning of Professor Thomas’s claim about Professor York, does not restate a premise.
C
mistakes Professor Thomas’s characterization of a view for an endorsement of that view
The author does not think Thomas endorsed anything that York did or said.
D
attacks Professor Thomas personally rather than addressing Professor Thomas’s argument
The author attacked Professor Thomas’s motivations rather than addressing the substance of Professor’s Thomas’s argument. We care about whether York is too flamboyant and confrontational. Thomas’s motive is irrelevant.
E
rejects the possibility that Professor York is in fact too confrontational
There’s a difference between rejecting Thomas’s conclusion that York is too confrontational and criticizing Thomas’s argument in favor of that conclusion. The author does the latter.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that restrictions on tobacco advertising have significantly reduced smoking among adults. This is based on a correlation observed between a decline in % of people who smoke and an increase in restrictions on tobacco advertising.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the correlation between decline in tobacco smoking and increase in restrictions on tobacco advertising is explained by the restrictions causing the decline. This overlooks alternate explanations for the correlation. For example, maybe both the decline and the increase in restrictions are caused by something else.
A
fails to consider whether there have been any changes over the last two decades in the percentage of the teenage population who smoke
The conclusion concerns adults’ smoking. Whether teens have also seen a decline in smoking doesn’t affect adults’ smoking.
B
uses evidence that describes only a percentage of the adult population to reach a conclusion about the entire adult population
The conclusion is not about the entire adult population. The conclusion simply asserts a causal relationship between restrictions on advertising and a decline in smoking. This doesn’t mean every adult stopped smoking or that every adult is affected by restrictions on advertising.
C
reaches a conclusion about smoking among today’s adults based on statistics from ten or twenty years ago
The conclusion is not about “today’s adults.” It assert that restrictions have “had” a significant impact on adults’ smoking. Evidence of what has happened in the past is relevant to a claim about what effects restrictions have “had.”
D
neglects to take into account whether there have been restrictions on the advertising of other products besides tobacco in the past ten years
It’s not clear what impact restrictions of other products could have on smoking. The author did not assume that there weren’t restrictions on canned food, toys, or pencils, for example.
E
fails to consider the possibility that factors other than restrictions on advertising have contributed to the decline in smoking among adults
This possibility, if true, shows why the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. If other factors could have contributed to the decline in smoking, then the correlation between restrictions and the decline does not have to be significantly due to those restrictions.