Self-study
Gas station owner: Increased fuel efficiency reduces air pollution and dependence on imported oil, which has led some people to suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency. ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██████████ █████████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ███████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The gas station owner concludes that car manufacturers should not seek to increase fuel efficiency. She argues that smaller cars offer less protection and are more likely to be severely damaged in crashes, and that the benefits of greater fuel efficiency aren't worth the increased risk to human lives.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The gas station owner concludes that manufacturers shouldn't try to increase fuel efficiency just because one way to do this— making cars smaller— is dangerous for human lives. She overlooks the possibility that there might be other ways to improve fuel efficiency without risking lives. In other words, she argues that because one method is too risky, the goal shouldn't be pursued at all.
25.
The reasoning in the gas ███████ ███████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
a
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████████ ███ █████ ████
The gas station owner never assumes this. In fact, she’s not talking about the likelihood of getting into an accident at all. She just claims that, when they are in accidents, smaller cars are more likely to be seriously damaged and so they pose a risk to human lives.
b
concludes, on the █████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███ ██ █████████████ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ███████
The owner concludes, on the basis of the claim that making cars smaller to make them more fuel efficient is unacceptable, that manufacturers shouldn’t pursue increased fuel efficiency at all. But perhaps there are other ways to increase fuel efficiency that are perfectly safe.
c
draws a conclusion █████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ████
The gas station owner does draw a conclusion about what should be done, but her premises are not all about factual matters only. The premise “greater fuel efficiency is not worth the added risk to human lives” is subjective.
d
presupposes the truth ██ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██ █████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, in which the conclusion merely restates a premise. The gas station owner doesn’t make this mistake; her premises and conclusion are distinct.
e
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ██████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ███ █████████
The gas station owner says that increasing fuel efficiency reduces air pollution, but she never assumes that it’s the only way to reduce air pollution.