The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed restoration of city hall, is right when he notes that the building is outdated, but that the restoration would be expensive at a time when the budget is already tight. We cannot afford such a luxury item in this time of financial restraint, he says. However, I respectfully disagree. The building provides the last remaining link to the days of the city’s founding, and preserving a sense of municipal history is crucial to maintaining respect for our city government and its authority. So to the question, “Can we really afford to?” I can only respond, “Can we afford not to?”
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The citizen concludes that the mayor is incorrect that the city can’t afford to restore city hall, which would strain the city’s limited budget. In support, the citizen explains that the building is the last link to the time of the city’s founding, and that preserving history helps to maintain respect for the city government. This supports the sub-conclusion that the city can’t afford not to restore city hall.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is an “equivocation” flaw, where the same word is used in two different ways. The citizen rejects the mayor’s point about financial “affordability.” This is supported with an appeal to cultural or historic “affordability.”
A
The argument is solely an emotional appeal to history.
The citizen’s appeal to history isn’t solely emotional, because it also includes the claim that history helps to maintain the city’s authority, which is a more pragmatic consideration.
B
The argument ambiguously uses the word “afford.”
The mayor’s claim that the city can’t “afford” the restoration refers to financial affordability. The citizen’s question of whether the city can “afford” not to restore the building refers instead to cultural or historic considerations, sidestepping the mayor’s point.
C
The argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor.
The citizen doesn’t appeal to the mayor’s authority—especially because the argument is aimed at discrediting the mayor’s position!
D
The argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive.
The citizen accepts the mayor’s point that the restoration would be expensive, but there’s no reason to think that claim is incorrect.
E
The argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as “outdated” and “luxury.”
The citizen’s argument doesn’t rely on words such as “outdated” and “luxury” at all. Those words are part of the mayor’s argument, with which the citizen disagrees.
Summary
At the end of each year in Country Q, there’s a count of the country’s total available coal supplies.
The total available coal supplies is the total amount of coal that has been mined throughout the country, but not yet used.
At the end of 1991 the total available coal supplies was lower than it was at the end of 1990.
Country Q has not imported or exported any coal since 1970. (So Country Q did not send any coal to another country and did not get coal from another country in 1991.)
The total available coal supplies is the total amount of coal that has been mined throughout the country, but not yet used.
At the end of 1991 the total available coal supplies was lower than it was at the end of 1990.
Country Q has not imported or exported any coal since 1970. (So Country Q did not send any coal to another country and did not get coal from another country in 1991.)
Notable Valid Inferences
Country Q consumed more coal in 1991 than it mined in 1991. This must be true because the total available coal supplies decreased from the end of 1990 to the end of 1991. If the country had mined more coal in 1991 than it had consumed that year or an equal amount, then the total available coal supplies would have increased or stayed the same.
A
In Country Q, more coal was mined in 1990 than was mined in 1991.
Could be false. We don’t know how much was mined in 1990 compared to 1991. In order to know something about the amount mined in 1990, we’d need to know how the coal supplies changed from the end of 1989 to the end of 1990.
B
In Country Q, the amount of coal consumed in 1991 was greater than the amount of coal mined in 1991.
Must be true. If (B) were not true, then the coal supplies would have increased or stayed the same from 1990 to 1991. But it decreased. So more was consumed than mined in 1991.
C
In Country Q, the amount of coal consumed in 1990 was greater than the amount of coal consumed in 1991.
Could be false. We don’t know how much was consumed in 1990 compared to 1991. In order to know something about the amount consumed in 1990, we’d need to know how the coal supplies changed from the end of 1989 to the end of 1990.
D
In Country Q, the amount of coal consumed in 1991 was greater than the amount of coal consumed in 1990.
Could be false. We don’t know how much was consumed in 1990 compared to 1991. In order to know something about the amount consumed in 1990, we’d need to know how the coal supplies changed from the end of 1989 to the end of 1990.
E
In Country Q, more coal was consumed during the first half of 1991 than was consumed during the first half of 1990.
Could be false. We don’t know how much was consumed in 1990 compared to 1991. We also don’t know when, within each year, any coal consumption took place. Maybe coal consumption was equal in the first half of each year.
Summarize Argument
Officials argue that setting out poison for the squirrels would pose no threat to the owl population. This is because the poison would only be accessible to squirrels and other rodents.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the squirrels don’t benefit the owl population in ways that outweigh their stripping the bark from the trees that owls nest in. The officials also assume that the owls won’t be harmed if other rodents die from poison set out for grey squirrels. Finally, the officials also assume that if owls can’t directly reach the poison, it won’t threaten their population. This means the officials assume the owls either won’t eat the dead squirrels, or else that poison in dead squirrels won’t harm owls to such a degree that it hurts their population.
A
One of the species whose members are likely to eat the poison is the red squirrel, a species on which owls do not prey.
If owls don’t prey on red squirrels, then it doesn’t matter whether or not the red squirrels also die. We would need more details about the ecosystem for this to be a weakener.
B
The owls whose nesting sites are currently being destroyed by the gray squirrels feed primarily on rodents.
Even though the poison would eliminate a threat to the owl population, it would also eliminate one of their food sources. This would harm the owl population, which means the poison likely won’t achieve its intended purpose.
C
No indigenous population of any other bird species apart from the endangered owls is threatened by the gray squirrels.
We don’t care about other bird species. We need to know if the poison will help the owl population.
D
The owls that are threatened build their nests in the tops of trees, but the gray squirrels strip away bark from the trunks.
We already know the squirrels are destroying the trees that owls nest in. It doesn’t matter exactly how that occurs.
E
The officials’ plan entails adding the poison to food sources that are usually eaten by rodents but not by other animals.
If anything, this strengthens the officials’ argument by suggesting that other members of the ecosystem won’t be directly consuming the poison. We need to show that the poison isn’t such a good idea in the first place.