Subscription pricing
Consumer advocate: Last year's worldwide alarm about a computer "virus"—a surreptitiously introduced computer program that can destroy other programs and data—was a fraud. █████████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ █████████ ███████ ████ ███████ ██████ █████████ ███████ █████ ███ ███████████ ████ █ ███████████ █████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ █ ███████ █████ █████ ███ ████ █████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ █████ █ ████████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ █████████ ██████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The consumer advocate concludes that antivirus companies’ warning about a destructive computer virus was a “fraud.” Why? Because there weren’t many actual cases of damage from that virus, and yet the companies sold many antivirus programs. According to the advocate, this shows that the warning was just meant to increase sales.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The consumer advocate uses an imbalance between antivirus sales and cases of damage from a virus as evidence that antivirus companies were dishonest about the risk posed by the virus. This ignores the possible alternative explanation that the antivirus programs worked, and without all those sales, the virus would have caused much more damage.
9.
The reasoning in the consumer ██████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████ ████████
a
restates its conclusion ███████ ██████████ ██ █████ █ ██████ ██ ██████ ██
b
fails to acknowledge ████ █████████ ████████ █████ ███████ ███████ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████
c
asserts that the ██████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████ ███
d
uses inflammatory language ██ █ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███ ████████
e
overlooks the possibility ████ ███ ██████████ █████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ █████ ████ ███████ ██████