Self-study
Politician: Conclusion The law should not require people to wear seat belts in cars. ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ █ ██████████ ████ █████ ███████ █ ████ ████ █████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ █ ███ ███████ ███████ ████
Method of Reasoning
The politician uses the analogy of motorcycles to conclude that it should be legal to not wear seatbelts in cars. She uses two premises to support her use of this analogy:
People are not required to use a seatbelt on a motorcycle
Riding a motorcycle with a seatbelt is more dangerous than riding in a car without one
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of using an analogy that isn’t analogous enough. The politician’s argument rests on a comparison between cars and motorcycles, but she fails to establish that motorcycles and cars are similar enough for this to work! We don’t know if seatbelts would help make motorcycles safer at all—maybe seatbelts are useful in cars but not motorcycles. Maybe a using seatbelt on a motorcycle is more dangerous than not using one, but using a seatbelt in a car is safer than not using one!
24.
Which one of the following █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████████ █████████
a
Marielle and Pat ██████ █████ █████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████ ██████ ████ █████████ █████ █████ ████████ ██ ████ █ █████ ███████ █████ ███████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████ █████ ███████ █████ ███████ █████ ██████████
Wrong flaw. This isn’t a perfect argument, because the premises don’t establish that the benefits of allowing snacks (improved nutrition) outweigh the costs (maybe the kids would have sugar crashes throughout the day!) However, it isn’t flawed in the same way the stimulus is: it doesn’t use a flawed analogy (or any analogy at all) to reach its conclusion.
b
Any corporation should █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ████████████ █████ ███ ████████ ████ █ ███ ████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███ ████ █ ███████ ████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ████ █ ███ █████
Wrong flaw. This isn’t valid (maybe employees with colds are allowed to stay home to keep people from getting sick, not because of productivity), but it’s structured differently. Look at the arguments’ second premises: The politician says a motorcycle with a seatbelt is more dangerous than a car without one; (B) says stressed, healthy employees can be less productive than unstressed employees with colds. The politician compares the allegedly analogous scenario (seatbelt on a motorcycle) with the scenario she advocates for (no seatbelt in a car), while (B)’s premise doesn’t mention either of its scenarios (time off with a bad cold or time off when stressed).
c
Amusement parks should █████ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ██████ ██████ █████████ ██ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █ ████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ █ █████ ████ ████ ████████ █████ ██████ █ ██████ ████████
The author uses the analogy of high cliffs to conclude that it should be legal to stand while riding roller coasters. She uses two premises to support this analogy:
People are allowed to stand at the edges of high cliffs
Sitting at the edge of a high cliff is more dangerous than standing while riding a roller coaster
Like the politician, (C) fails to establish that the analogy is analogous enough—maybe sitting at the edge of a high cliff is more dangerous than standing, but standing on a roller coaster is more dangerous than sitting!
d
It should be ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █ ██████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ █████ █████ █████ ███
Wrong flaw. This isn’t valid (maybe there are differences between smoking and pollution that aren’t accounted for), but it’s structured differently. The stimulus argues that something should be legal because it is legal in a different context; by contrast, (D) argues that something should be illegal because something else should also be illegal.
e
Vanessa should be ███████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ █ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ █ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████
Wrong flaw. This isn’t a valid argument (just because Vanessa lets her dog roam her yard without a leash doesn’t mean she should, and that doesn’t mean she should do so in the park!) but it isn’t structured like the stimulus. Unlike the stimulus, (E) does not have a comparative premise.