Self-study
Support The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates is one of the most successful law firms whose primary specialization is in criminal defense cases. ██ █████ ███ ████ ███ █ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ █████ ███████ ██████████████ ██ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Dalton can’t be a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates, because his primary specialization is in divorce cases, while the firm’s is in criminal defense cases.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter “confusing whole vs. part” flaw, otherwise known as the fallacy of division. The author assumes that, because something is true of a group as a whole, it must also be true for one part or member of that group. In other words, he assumes that, just because the firm specializes in criminal defense and Dalton does not specialize in criminal defense, Dalton cannot be a member of the firm.
2.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
a
offers in support ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ █████████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “internal contradiction,” where an argument contradicts itself. The author’s argument simply doesn’t make this mistake. His evidence may not support his conclusion very well, but it isn’t contradictory.
b
overlooks the possibility ████ █ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ █████ █ ██████ ██ █ ███ ████
This wouldn’t damage the argument, so overlooking it can’t be a flaw. The author only argues that Dalton isn’t a part of this particular firm. Whether he’s part of a different firm or no firm at all would not impact this argument.
c
concludes that someone ██ ███ █ ██████ ██ █ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ █ ██████████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ █ █████ ███
The author concludes that Dalton isn’t a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates on the grounds that the group as a whole specializes in criminal defense, while Dalton does not.
d
takes a high ████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ██████ █████ ███ ███████
The author claims that the firm is one of the most successful, but he never makes the claim that each member of the firm is equally successful.
e
states a generalization █████ ██ █ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ █████ ███ ██████████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ████
The author’s conclusion is not a generalization, it’s a specific statement about Dalton.