Subscription pricing
Mayor: Conclusion The law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights serves no useful purpose. █████ ████ ██ █████ ██ █████ █ ██████ ████████ █ ███ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ████ █████ █████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████
Summarize Argument
The mayor concludes that the law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights is useless. He supports this with three premises:
(1) To be useful, a law must prevent the behavior that it bans.
(2) Pedestrians who always break this law are not dissuaded by it.
(3) Pedestrians who always follow the law don’t need it, because they wouldn’t cross on red even without the law.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “false dichotomy,” where the author falsely divides the world into two binary halves. In this case, the mayor divides the world into pedestrians who always break this law and pedestrians who never break it. He doesn’t consider that there might be other people who only sometimes break this law; how might the law affect them?
13.
The mayor's argument is flawed ███████ ██
a
takes for granted ████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████
b
uses the word █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████
c
ignores the possibility ████ █ ███ █████ ███ █████ █ ██████ ███████ ████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████
d
fails to consider ███████ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ██████ ███ █████████ ███ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████
e
provides no evidence ████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ████████ ██ █████ ██████