Self-study
Herbalist: Many of my customers find that their physical coordination improves after drinking juice containing certain herbs. █ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ █ ████████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ██ ████ ██████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The herbalist concludes that there’s no reason not to try drinking herb juice, even though some doctors say it might be harmful. According to the herbalist, doctors just want to keep a monopoly on medical treatments, implying that we should ignore them.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter ad hominem flaw. The herbalist attacks the doctors’ character to try to discredit them instead of addressing the actual claim the doctors are making.
14.
The reasoning in the herbalist's ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
a
attempts to force ██████████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ █████████ ████ █████
The herbalist doesn’t bring up any consequences of rejecting the claim that herb juice is safe to drink.
b
bases a conclusion ██ ██████ ████ ███ ████████████ ████ ████ █████
The herbalist never makes any claims that are inconsistent with each other.
c
rejects a claim ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██████
The herbalist rejects the doctors’ claim that herb juice may be dangerous by attacking the doctors’ motives, and doesn’t address the possibility of herb juice being dangerous. However, the doctors’ claim might still be accurate regardless of their motives.
d
relies on evidence █████████ ██ █████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████ ███ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████
The herbalist’s evidence, that doctors have ulterior motives, does not presuppose the truth of the conclusion that there’s no reason not to try herb juice.
e
mistakes the observation ████ ███ █████ ███████ █████ ███████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████
The herbalist isn’t discussing any two events that happen one after the other, nor does the argument propose a causal relationship.