Self-study
Support Mullen has proposed to raise taxes on the rich, who made so much money during the past decade. ███ ████████ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████████████
Method of Reasoning
This argument starts by stating that Mullen has proposed increased taxes for the rich. It goes on to provide evidence that suggests that Mullen himself is rich—he has invested heavily in business and profited. Based on Mullen’s personal proximity to the proposal, the argument concludes that we should not consider his proposal.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This commits the cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the source of the argument. The argument is that, because Mullen is a member of the group his proposal impacts, his proposal cannot be a good one. But Mullen’s wealth—or his character, or anything else about him—tells us absolutely nothing about the quality of his proposal! Furthermore, even if we could question a proposal Mullen made because he would stand to benefit from it personally, this wouldn’t be that proposal—as a rich person, he would not benefit from the raised taxes. Rather, he would suffer! Therefore, we don’t even have support for a claim that he’s biased toward his proposal.
17.
The flawed reasoning in the ████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
Do not vote ███ ███████ ████████ ███████████ ██ █████████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ████████ █████ ██ █ ███████ ███████
Wrong flaw. While this commits the same cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the argument’s source, it does so in a different way than the stimulus. In (A), Smith stands to benefit from her proposal as a working parent. In the stimulus, Mullen doesn’t stand to benefit from his proposal, because he is in the group whose taxes would be raised. Therefore, (A) indicates that Smith might be biased toward her proposal, whereas the stimulus doesn’t give evidence to suggest that Mullen would be biased toward his.
b
Do not put ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ███ ██ █ █████ ███████
This argument states that Dr. Han proposed a ban on smoking in public places. It adds that Dr. Han is a heavy smoker. Based Dr. Han’s proximity to the proposal, the argument concludes that we should not consider her proposal. Like the stimulus, this is an example of the cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the argument’s source. Also like the stimulus, the proposer of the policy doesn’t stand to benefit from the policy, but rather would suffer from its implementation, and therefore wouldn’t be biased toward the proposal based on the information given.
c
The previous witness's █████████ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ████ ██████
Wrong flaw. While this commits the same cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the argument’s source, it does so in a different way than the stimulus. The witness in (C) is not alleged to be personally biased toward or against her testimony; rather, (C) attacks her character and thereby her credibility. By contrast, the stimulus discards Mullen’s proposal because he himself would be impacted by it.
d
Board member Timm's ████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ███████████ ██████ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████████
Wrong flaw. While this commits the same cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the argument’s source, it does so in a different way than the stimulus. In (D), Timm stands to benefit from her proposal. In the stimulus, Mullen doesn’t stand to benefit from his proposal, because he is in the group whose taxes would be raised. Therefore, (D) indicates that Timm might be biased toward her proposal, whereas the stimulus doesn’t give evidence to suggest that Mullen would be biased toward his.
e
Dr. Wasow's analysis ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████████ ███████ ██████████
Wrong flaw. While this commits the same cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the argument’s source, it does so in a different way than the stimulus. Dr. Wasow is not alleged to be biased toward or against any particular analysis of the bridge; rather, (E) merely attacks her design credibility. By contrast, the stimulus discards Mullen’s proposal because he himself would be impacted by it.