Self-paced
Consumer advocate: There is ample evidence that Conclusion the model of car one drives greatly affects the chances that one's car will be stolen. ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ █████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The advocate concludes that some models of cars are more likely to be stolen than others. Why? Because the model of car that was stolen most often one year ago is the same as that stolen most often two years ago.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing percentages and amounts. The advocate draws an implied conclusion about how likely a certain kind of car is to be stolen (i.e. the percentage of said cars that are stolen). But his only support is the total number of thefts of that car model.
Without knowing how common this car model is, we have no way of knowing how likely it is to be stolen. What if this is simply the most popular model of car? In that case, even if it was stolen at the same rate as other models, the total number of stolen cars of this model would be higher.
8.
The consumer advocate's reasoning is ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██
a
fails to address ██████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███████
If this is true, the fact that it was stolen the most doesn’t tell us that thieves targeted it more often than any other model of car. This undermines the advocate’s conclusion.
b
fails to address ██████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ███ ██ █ ███ ████ ███████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ██████
Whether age also affects the chances of being stolen is irrelevant; the author could agree that age matters, but stick to his conclusion that model also matters.
c
fails to address ██████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █ ████ ████ ██████ █████
This would support the author’s conclusion—it provides a potential reason why this model would be more likely to be stolen—so it can’t be the flaw.
d
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██ █████ █ ██████████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ██
The advocate doesn’t presume that the model is the only reason a car might be likely to be stolen—merely that it’s one reason.
e
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ █ █████ █████ ██████ ██████ ████████ █████ ██████████████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ █████
The advocate doesn’t presume anything about which car one should drive, so this can’t be the flaw.