Self-study
Industrialist: Environmentalists contend that emissions from our factory pose a health risk to those living downwind. ███ ████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ██████████ █████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ █ ███████ █████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ███████████ █████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The industrialist concludes that his factory’s emissions are not a health risk to nearby residents. He supports this by saying that the only testimony about the emissions comes from local residents, but only a trained scientist can assess the danger, and none of the residents are scientists.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The industrialist’s reasoning is flawed because he fails to provide any evidence for his conclusion. Even if the residents’ testimonies cannot prove that the emissions are a health risk, the industrialist still needs to provide evidence for the conclusion that the emissions are not a health risk.
In other words, he assumes that the environmentalists’ conclusion is false simply because their support is weak.
4.
The reasoning in the industrialist's ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
a
impugns the motives ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ██████████
This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the person or group making the argument, rather than the argument itself. The industrialist doesn’t make this mistake. He attacks his opponents’ support and doesn’t make any assumptions about their motives.
b
does not consider ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████
The argument is only about the safety of emissions from the industrialist’s factory. Emissions from any other sources are irrelevant.
c
presents no testimony ████ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███ ████
The industrialist fails to provide any evidence for his conclusion that the emissions are safe. He claims that only scientists can testify that the emissions are safe, but he never actually presents any scientists’ testimonies.
d
fails to discuss ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████████
The industrialist only concludes that the factory’s emissions do not present a health risk. He doesn’t need to discuss any benefits of the factory to the community.
e
equivocates between two █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ █████
The industrialist doesn’t make this mistake. He uses the term “health risk” clearly and consistently throughout his argument.