Self-study
Television network executive: Some scientists have expressed concern about the numerous highly popular television programs that emphasize paranormal incidents, warning that these programs will encourage superstition and thereby impede the public's scientific understanding. ███ █████ ███████████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ████████ ████████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ █████ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ██████████ █████████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ █████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that programs that emphasize paranormal incidents will not impede the public’s scientific understanding. This is based on the fact that throughout history, story-tellers have told stories involving paranormal elements, but the public’s scientific understanding has steadily advanced during this time.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that paranormal stories have impeded (meaning, obstructed or hindered) the public’s understanding of science, even if they haven’t completely stopped advancement of that understanding. Something can still advance while being impeded.
23.
The television network executive's argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████
a
It fails to ████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███████████
The author fails to consider that the public’s understanding of science can steadily advance even when it is being impeded by paranormal stories. This is why the author’s premise does not establish that TV shows about paranormal incidents won’t impede understanding.
b
It takes for ███████ ████ ██ █ ███████████ ███ ████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ██████████
The author does not assume that correlation proves cause. The author’s conclusion does not assert cause or rely on an assumption of cause. In fact, the author asserts that one thing (paranormal stories) does not cause another thing (impeding of understanding).
c
It fails to ████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███ █████████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████
The conclusion is that one thing does not impede another thing. Pointing out a failure to consider what could be true “even if [one thing] does not impede [another thing]” does not show why the argument is weak. Any weakness must relate to why one thing can impede another thing.
d
It fails to ████████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ████████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ███████
The author does not overlook the possibility that a causal relationship is also reversed. The author does not, for example, assert that paranormal stories can’t affect public understanding because public understanding has affected paranormal stories.
e
It takes for ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ ███████
The contention is that paranormal TV shows impede scientific understanding. The author believes this is baseless. But the author does not cite to the fact that the impeding of scientific understanding has persisted despite increases in the pervasiveness of paranormal stories.