Garcia: Without sensible limits, damage awards can be so high that corporations are destroyed. As a result, employees lose their jobs and the productivity of the corporation is lost. This harms the economy and thus harms consumers.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Flynn concludes that allowing people to get large damage awards in lawsuits against corporations that produce dangerous products is beneficial for consumers. This is because he thinks the possibility of having to pay large damages creates an incentive for corporations to make products more safe.
Garcia disagrees and concludes that large damage awards harm consumers. This is because he thinks paying large damages can destroy corporations, which leads to job loss and loss of productivity, which hurts the economy.
Garcia disagrees and concludes that large damage awards harm consumers. This is because he thinks paying large damages can destroy corporations, which leads to job loss and loss of productivity, which hurts the economy.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Garcia points out potential harms of large damage awards.
A
arguing that the policy supported in Flynn’s argument could have undesirable consequences
Garcia argues that the policy supported by Flynn (allowing large damage awards against corporations) could have the undesirable consequences of job loss and damage to the economy.
B
providing evidence that undermines one of the premises of Flynn’s argument
Garcia never suggests that large damage awards don’t create an incentive to make products safer. So Garcia doesn’t undermine Flynn’s premise.
C
comparing Flynn’s argument to an obviously flawed argument that has the same logical structure
Garcia doesn’t compare Flynn’s argument to another argument. There is no analogous argument that Garcia brings up.
D
contending that Flynn’s argument could be used to support a policy that is inconsistent with the policy that Flynn advocates
The policy Flynn advocates is allowing large damage awards against corporations. Garcia never suggests that Flynn’s own argument supports disallowing large damage awards. Garcia presents his own, separate argument from Flynn’s against large damage awards.
E
providing an alternative explanation for a situation described in Flynn’s argument
Neither person is trying to explain a situation. They’re advocating for or against allowing large damage awards against corporations.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the revolutionary party was not overambitious and caused NO suffering. This is based on the fact that most of the party’s goals were achieved quickly and that the party didn’t have enough power to cause GREAT suffering.
Identify and Describe Flaw
There are two key assumptions. First, the author assumes that achieving most goals quickly implies that there weren’t many overambitious goals. This overlooks the possibility that there were a lot of goals that the party still didn’t achieve. Second, the author assumes that not being able to cause GREAT suffering implies that the party caused NO suffering. This overlooks the possibility that the party still caused some suffering, even if it wasn’t great.
A
gives mutually inconsistent responses to the two criticisms
There’s nothing contradictory about claiming that the party achieved most goals and that it didn’t have enough power to cause great suffering. Both can be true.
B
fails to establish that the revolutionary party caused no suffering
The author’s premises establish that the party didn’t cause GREAT suffering. But this doesn’t establish what the conclusion asserts — that the party caused NO suffering.
C
fails to establish that any of the revolutionary party’s critics underestimated the party’s power
The argument didn’t need to establish anything about the critics of the revolutionary party. The critics’ claims are mentioned purely as context in the first sentence; the argument’s reasoning doesn’t rely on critics’ perceptions of the party.
D
provides no evidence that the revolutionary party’s goals were not overambitious
The author does provide some evidence that the goals were not overambitious — the party achievedmost of its goals quickly. This evidence doesn’t prove that the party was not overambitious, but it does constitute at least some evidence it wasn’t ambitious.
E
fails to consider other major criticisms of the revolutionary party
The argument didn’t need to consider other major criticisms. It focusd on two particular criticisms about being overambitious and causing great suffering and tried to rebut those points. But the argument doesn’t take a position on any other issues.