Self-study
Support The first bicycle, the Draisienne, was invented in 1817. █ █████ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ████████ ███████████ ███████████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █ ████████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ████████ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ██████
Summary
The author hypothesizes that the reason bicycles went out of fashion between 1817 and the 1860s after a period of brief acceptance in 1817 is that a change in values must have taken place between 1817 and the 1860s. Why? Because in order for new technologies to be accepted, they must cohere with the values of society.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument mistakes a sufficient condition for a necessary one.
Although a new technology's acceptance would be sufficient to know that the technology coheres with the values of a society, this doesn't imply that the failure of a new technology to be accepted allows us to conclude that the technology doesn't cohere with the values of society. A new technology can cohere with the values of society even if it's rejected by society. So it's possible that the bicycle went out of fashion until the 1860s even if it cohered with the values of society and there was no change in values from when the bicycle was initially accepted. Another way to describe the flaw is that the argument overlooks other explanations for the disappearance of the bicycles between 1817 and 1860. The author assumes the explanation must be a change in values, but there are other reasons the bicycle might have been rejected.
25.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
a
presumes, without giving ██████████████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████████
The argument doesn't assume that bicycles weren't genuinely accepted during the brief fad. The author could agree that they were genuinely accepted very briefly. The argument is about whether, once bicycles went out of fashion after their initial brief acceptance, that implies the values of society must have changed.
b
fails to recognize ████ ███ ████████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████
The argument does not fail to recognize this. The argument is about the failure to accept bicycles between 1817 to 1860s, not about the acceptance of bicycles since the 1860s.
c
offers no support ███ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ███████
This is irrelevant. Whether it was the first bicycle or not, there was still a period of time during which bicycles disappeared. The argument is about whether the disappearance implies a change in society's values.
d
poses a question ████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████
The question (Why was this?) is relevant since the conclusion is an attempt to explain what caused bicycles to disappear.
e
ignores, without giving ██████████████ ███████████ ████████ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ████████
This describes how the argument neglects other possible causes for the bicycle’s disappearance. While failing to cohere with society’s values can cause a technology to be rejected, it’s not the only possible explanation. In other words, it's possible that bicycles cohered with society's values, but something else caused them to disappear.