Self-study
Policy analyst: Support Increasing the size of a police force is only a stopgap method of crime prevention; it does not get at the root causes of crime. ██████████ ████ █████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██████ ██████
Method of Reasoning
This argument starts by stating that increasing the size of the police force does not fully prevent crime, but rather can be seen as a stopgap method (a temporary solution). It concludes on that basis that city officials shouldn’t increase the size of police forces as a response to rising crime rates.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Even if increasing the size of a police force doesn’t fully and permanently prevent crime, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a useful or beneficial tool! It can both be true that increasing the size of a police force doesn’t address the root causes of crime, and that increasing the police force size helps reduce crime rates—which might make it something city officials should do!
16.
The flawed reasoning in which ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ █████████
a
Some people think ████ █████ ████ ██████ █████████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ █████████ █████ ████████ ███████ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██████ █ █████ ██ █████████████████ ███ ████ █████ ████████ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███████ █████ ██████ █████ █████████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████ █████████ ██████
Wrong flaw. This isn’t a terrible argument, but it isn’t valid, either. It commits the cookie-cutter error of overlooking benefits: it tells us about a cost of these high-standard rules (worse behavior), but it fails to rule out possible benefits (maybe the rules allow societies to maintain moral high ground over other societies!) That isn’t the flaw in the stimulus, though—the stimulus rejects a policy just because the policy won’t entirely solve an issue, without considering the fact that the policy’s potential to partially resolve the issue might make it worth implementing.
b
Swamps play an █████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████ █ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████ ███████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ██████
Wrong flaw. This is an example of overlooking benefits: the argument describes a benefit of dams as well as a cost, and then concludes in favor of the cost without giving sufficient reason to ignore the benefit. That isn’t the flaw in the stimulus, though—the stimulus is flawed in that it rejects a policy just because the policy won’t entirely solve an issue, without considering the fact that the policy’s potential to partially resolve the issue might make it worth implementing.
c
Although less effective ██ ██████████ █████ ████ ████████ ███████ ███████ █████ ███████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ █████ █████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ████████
Wrong flaw. This isn’t a terrible argument, but it isn’t valid, either. It doesn’t rule out the possibility that security guards are better than burglar alarms for reasons other than cost, and it doesn’t tell us that there isn’t some other, third option that’s better than burglar alarms. These aren’t the flaw in the stimulus, though—the stimulus rejects a policy just because the policy won’t entirely solve an issue, without considering the fact that the policy’s potential to partially resolve the issue might make it worth implementing.
d
Because taking this ████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███████████ ███ ████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ████ █████
This argument starts by stating that taking the drug doesn’t cure the disease, but does reduces the disease’s most harmful effects. It concludes on that basis that doctors shouldn’t prescribe the drug. This is the same flaw as seen in the stimulus: it rejects a solution just because the solution won’t entirely solve an issue, without considering the fact that the solution’s potential to partially resolve the issue might make it worth implementing.
e
We will never █████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ █████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████
Wrong flaw. This fails to establish that we would need to fully understand the causes of criminal activity in order to improve society’s ability to combat crime, so the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premise. That isn’t the flaw in the stimulus, though—the stimulus is flawed in that it rejects a policy just because the policy won’t entirely solve an issue, without considering the fact that the policy’s potential to partially resolve the issue might make it worth implementing.