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