Self-study
Legislator: The recently released crime statistics clearly show that the new laws requiring stiffer punishments for violators have reduced the crime rate. ██ ███ █████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ █████ █████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████████
████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ██████████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ███████████ ████ ████████ █ ███████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ███████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The analyst concludes that the decrease in crime in areas covered by new, stricter punishment laws does not constitute strong evidence that those laws caused the decrease in crime. The analyst supports this conclusion with a comparison to areas that have experienced a similar decrease in crime, but without similar laws.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The analyst counters the legislator’s cause-and-effect argument by pointing out comparable cases that have shown the same “effect” but that have not experienced the proposed “cause.” This suggests that there is some alternative explanation that has given rise to the effect.
17.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████████ █████████
a
pointing out that ███ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████████ ██████████ ██ █████
The analyst doesn’t call the reliability or truth of the statistics into question, only arguing that they do not necessarily support the legislator’s conclusion.
b
arguing that the ██████████ ███ ████████████ █████████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ █ ██████ █████
The analyst doesn’t argue that the reduction in crime and the introduction of stricter laws are caused by the same thing. The analyst instead points out that the laws simply may not be the cause of the reduction in crime.
c
objecting that the ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ █ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ █ ██████████ ████ ██████
The analyst doesn’t object to the statistics in any way and accepts the decrease in crime as real.
d
claiming that the ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ █████████ █ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ████████████ █████████████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████
The analyst doesn’t address the legislator’s motivation for making the argument, only arguing against the content of the argument itself.
e
implying that the ██████████ ███ █████ █ ██████████ █████ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███████████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ █████
The analyst points to cases where the same effect has occurred (a decrease in crime) but that have not been subject to the legislator’s assumed cause (the stricter laws). This is used to suggest that the cause-and-effect conclusion drawn by the legislator is unjustified.