Self-paced
Archaeologist: The fact that the ancient Egyptians and the Maya both built pyramids is often taken as evidence of a historical link between Old- and New-World civilizations that is earlier than any yet documented. ███ █████ █████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ █████████ ███ ████████ ████████ ████ ███████████ █████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ████████████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The archaeologist concludes there’s no earlier historical link between Old- and New-World civilizations. She supports this by pointing out that Egyptian and Mayan pyramids were different in design and purpose: Egyptian pyramids were tombs for rulers, while Mayan pyramids were used as temples.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The archaeologist concludes that no historical link exists simply because the pyramids had different designs and uses. She ignores the possibility that the two cultures could still have influenced each other’s pyramids despite those differences.
This is also an example of the cookie-cutter flaw of concluding that an opponent’s conclusion is false, simply because you’ve wrecked their argument’s support. In order to conclude that no historical link exists, the archaeologist must assume that there is no other relevant evidence that supports it.
8.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ██ ███ ███████████████ █████████
a
The argument equivocates ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation. The archaeologist doesn’t make this mistake; she uses “evidence” clearly and consistently throughout her argument.
b
The argument appeals ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████
The archaeologist never appeals to emotion. She does try to appeal to reason by claiming that the pyramids had different designs and uses; it just doesn’t support her argument very well.
c
The argument assumes ███ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, where the premise is simply a restatement of the conclusion. The archaeologist doesn’t make this mistake; her premises and conclusion are distinct.
d
The argument incorrectly ██████ ██ █████ █████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████
The archaeologist uses words precisely and correctly. She just fails to consider other potentially relevant evidence.
e
The argument presumes ████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████
The author assumes that no other evidence supports the existence of an earlier historical link between Old- and New-World civilizations. She claims that her opponents’ conclusion is false, simply because she believes that she’s weakened one piece of support for it.