Summarize Argument
The argument concludes that it’s safe to assume that either underinflating or overinflating tires damages the tires. Why? Because no one has proven that underinflation or overinflation don’t damage tires.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a “lack of support vs. false conclusion” flaw, where a position is taken to be false just because no one has proved that it’s true. Specifically, the argument rejects the possibility that underinflation and overinflation are harmless, just because that possibility hasn’t been proven.
A
The argument assumes what it is attempting to demonstrate.
The argument does not assume that underinflation and overinflation damage tires. There is support offered, even if that support is weak.
B
The argument overlooks that what is not in principle susceptible to proof might be false.
There isn’t anything in the argument that’s “not susceptible to proof”. No one is claiming that it’s impossible to prove whether underinflation and overinflation are harmless to tires, just that it hasn’t been proven yet.
C
The argument fails to specify how it is that underinflation or overinflation harms tire tread.
The mechanism of how tire tread might be harmed isn’t relevant to the question of whether it’s safe to assume that the tire tread will be harmed, just because no one has proven that it won’t be harmed.
D
The argument rejects the possibility that what has not been proven is nevertheless true.
The argument rejects the possibility that it might be true that underinflation and overinflation don’t damage tires, even though it hasn’t been proven. This possibility undermines the idea that it’s “safe to assume” that the tires will be damaged.
E
The argument fails to precisely define the terms “underinflation” and “overinflation.”
The exact definition of what counts as an underinflated or overinflated tire is irrelevant to whether or not those conditions are likely to damage tires, based on the fact that they haven’t been proven not to damage tires.
Sergio: No. Oceans have always been viewed as mysterious and unpredictable—qualities that people have invariably associated with eccentricity.
Speaker 1 Summary
Tina believes that the link between oceans and human eccentricity is probably due to the Renaissance practice of using ships as asylums. She doesn’t provide any support for this belief; she simply asserts that it’s true without providing a premise.
Speaker 2 Summary
Sergio concludes that the linkage between oceans and human eccentricity is not due to the practice of using ships as asylums. Oceans and human eccentricity have always been linked to each other, even before that practice emerged.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about the origin of the link between oceans and human eccentricity. Tina thinks the link is due to the practice of using ships as asylums. Sergio does not think this is the origin.
A
Eccentric humans were considered socially undesirable during the European Renaissance.
Sergio doesn’t express an opinion. He doesn’t comment on people during the Renaissance or how they might have been viewed.
B
Oceans have always been viewed as mysterious and unpredictable.
Tina expresses no opinion about this. She comment about the linkage between oceans and human eccentricity. But she doesn’t comment on whether oceans have been viewed as mysterious and unpredictable.
C
The linkage between oceans and eccentricity explains the European Renaissance custom of using ships as asylums.
Sergio expresses no opinion. He believes the linkage did not result from ships as asylums. But whether the practice of ships as asylums resulted from the linkage is not discussed. (Tina probably disagrees with this answer, but it doesn’t matter, since Sergio has no opinion.)
D
People have never attributed the same qualities to oceans and eccentrics.
Tina expresses no opinion. She doesn’t comment on any of the qualities of oceans or whether they have been attributed to people.
E
The linkage between oceans and eccentricity predates the European Renaissance.
There is support for a disagreement. Tina thinks the origin of the linkage was a practice in the Renaissance. Sergio believes humans have “invariably” associated qualities of the ocean with eccentricity. To him, this suggests the linkage existed before the Renaissance.
Supervisor: I agree with your overall conclusion, but disagree about one point you make, since the latest closed furnaces are extremely fuel-efficient.
Speaker 1 Summary
The plant manager says that switching to a new copper-smelting process would be expensive and unprofitable. How do we know? First, the new equipment is expensive. Second, the new process costs more to run. This second point is supported by an explanation that the new process requires cooling then reheating copper (making it a sub-conclusion).
Speaker 2 Summary
The supervisor disagrees with the plant manager that the new process has higher running costs. This isn’t explicitly stated, but is implied by the support the supervisor gives: the new process is very fuel-efficient. We can infer that this supports a disagreement about the running cost because it would allow savings on fuel.
Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. This is the claim that the new process costs more to run: the plant manager agrees, but the supervisor implicitly disagrees.
A
whether the new copper-smelting process releases less sulfur dioxide gas into the atmosphere than the current process
The plant manager agrees with this claim, but the supervisor never expresses an opinion. The supervisor’s argument is unrelated to sulfur dioxide emissions, so we can infer that the supervisor accepts the plant manager’s claim on this point.
B
whether the new copper-smelting process is more expensive to run than the current process
The plant manager agrees that the new process is more expensive to run, but the supervisor’s argument indicates disagreement. This isn’t explicitly stated, but the supervisor provides support for the implied conclusion that the new process isn’t more expensive to run.
C
whether the new process should be adopted in the copper-smelting plant
Neither speaker expresses an opinion about this. It may be tempting to assume the speakers agree on this because the new process would be unprofitable, but we don’t know how much they care about sulfur dioxide emissions. Either way, the speakers don’t disagree on this point.
D
whether closed copper-smelting furnaces are more fuel-efficient than open furnaces
The supervisor agrees with this claim, but the plant manager never expresses an opinion. The supervisor uses this as support for a disagreement with a single point the plant manager makes, but we don’t know what the plant manager thinks about fuel efficiency.
E
whether cooling and reheating the copper will cost more than moving it in molten form
The plant manager agrees with this claim, but the supervisor doesn’t indicate an opinion. The supervisor’s argument doesn’t dispute that cooling and reheating the copper costs more, just that the overall cost of running the new process is greater.