Self-study
Professor Riley characterized the university president's speech as inflammatory and argued that it was therefore inappropriate. ████████ █████ ███ ███ █ █████████████ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ ██ ██████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██████████ ██████ █████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ███████████ ██████ █████████████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Riley argues that the president’s speech was nflammatory, so therefore it’s inappropriate.
The author points out that Riley has had a feud with the president, so we shouldn’t believe that the speech was inflammatory merely because Riley says it was.
Thus, the author concludes that if we don’t have any independent reason to think the speech was inflammatory, the speech was not inappropriate.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that Riley’s long-standing feud with the president constitutes a reason we should not accept Riley’s claim that the speech was inflammatory as conclusive evidence that it was inflammatory.
The author also assumes that being inflammatory is the only way for the speech to have been inappropriate. In other words, the author’s overlooking the possibility that the speech could have been inappropriate even if it was not inflammatory.
21.
The argument is flawed in ████ ██
a
takes for granted ████ ███ ██████ █████ ███ ██ █████████████ ██ ██ ███ ███ ████████████
The author assumes that if the speech wasn’t inflammatory, then it wasn’t inappropriate. This overlooks the possibility that the speech could have been inappropriate for other reasons.
b
fails to adequately ███████ ███ ███████████ ████ ████████████ ████████ ███ ██ ███████████ ███ ████ █████████
The author’s position is that we don’t have evidence the speech was inflammatory. So what’s possible in the event the speech was inflammatory doesn’t matter. The argument concerns what a non-inflammatory speech would imply.
c
favors the university ███████████ ████ ██ █ ███████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ████████
We don’t know what the president’s side in the dispute is, and we don’t know whether the author favors it. In addition, the author doesn’t rely on the president’s standing as support for the conclusion.
d
concludes that Riley's █████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ████
The author does point out that Riley has been in a feud with the president, but that doesn’t imply that Riley has anything to gain from people thinking the speech was inappropriate. So the author’s conclusion is not based on the idea that Riley has something to gain.
e
fails to adequately ███████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████
Whether Riley’s feelings about the president are justified is irrelevant. The issue is whether the president’s speech was inappropriate, and whether there are other ways for it to be inappropriate besides being inflammatory.