Self-study
Letter to the editor: Support According to your last edition's anonymous article, we should all be required to carry identification cards and show them on demand. ████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███ ████████ ██████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████ ██████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the opinion put forth in an article that everyone should carry around an ID card at all times is incorrect. He supports this assertion by saying that the writers of the article should not have remained anonymous if they were going to argue for the general public being required to carry identification.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This author is not attacking any specific points of the article or arguing against particular claims made by the writers. Instead, he identifies a behavior of the writers’ that he deems hypocritical and uses that to support his conclusion that they are wrong. This is flawed reasoning because the author tries to prove his opponents wrong not on the merits of their argument, but rather their actions that have nothing to do with any points they would have made in the article.
11.
The reasoning above is most ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██
a
criticizes the editor ██████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████
The author of this argument never criticizes the editor of the article; rather, he goes after the actions of the writers of the article.
b
diverts attention from ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████
The author does not argue against anything the writers said in their article, but instead against actions of theirs that he sees as contradictory to their point. Because the author did not address the merits of the writers’ argument, his conclusion is not supported.
c
commits the same █████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████
The author accuses the writers of the article of being hypocritical, but nowhere in his argument does he mirror their hypocrisy. Instead, he takes their actions that contradict an opinion in their article as proof that their opinion is wrong.
d
attacks the integrity ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ███████ ████████ █████ ████
The author does not attack the integrity of the writers. Instead, he attacks their opinion and bases his attack on their actions.
e
confuses two meanings ██ ███ ████ ███████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where an author interchanges two different meanings of a word. However, that is not present in this argument. The meaning of “anonymous” remains the same throughout the argument.