Support Statistics indicating a sudden increase in the incidence of a problem often merely reflect a heightened awareness of the problem or a greater ability to record its occurrence. █████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ █████████ ███ █ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████
The argument concludes that we should be cautious about radical solutions to problems which are proposed as a reaction to new statistical data. This is because, when stats show a sudden increase in a problem, it’s often just because we’re more aware of the problem or more able to track it.
The argument assumes that greater awareness of a problem, or greater ability to track that problem, do not by themselves justify radical solutions to the problem. Otherwise, there would be no link between a proposed radical solution being prompted by statistical data, and a need for caution.
The argumentation conforms most closely ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
A better cognizance ██ █ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████████ ██ █ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████
The argument tells us to be cautious when being more aware of a problem—in other words, heightened cognizance—leads to a proposed radical solution. That conforms to this principle, that greater awareness doesn’t actually justify radical solutions.
Attempts to stop ███ ██████████ ██ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █ █████████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███████
The argument isn’t specifically talking about attempts to stop a problem from occurring, but about “radical solutions” in general. Also, the argument for caution is much broader than just ensuring the problem exists. This principle is too narrow to match the argument.
Proposals for radical █████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██████
The argument isn’t concerned with what information the radical solutions are based on. The issue is what justifies proposing radical solutions in the first place, which this doesn’t address.
Statistical data should ███ ██ ███████████ ██ ████ █ ███████ ████████ ██ █ ███████ ████ ████ █████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███
The idea of manipulating statistical data doesn’t come up anywhere in the argument, and is irrelevant to the argument’s reasoning.
Radical solutions to ████████ ███ █████ █████ ████████ ███ ███ ██ █████ ████ ████ ████ █████
This is irrelevant, because the argument isn’t concerned with weighing the costs and benefits of radical solutions overall.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic