Self-study
Support Each of the smallest particles in the universe has an elegantly simple structure. █████ █████ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ██████ ██████████
Method of Reasoning
This argument tells us that all of the parts of a whole have a certain quality (the smallest particles are all structured simply and elegantly). On that basis, the argument concludes that the whole must share the same quality (the universe is structured simply and elegantly).
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing part vs. whole, wherein the author assumes that what’s true about the individual parts of something must also be true about the thing itself. The particles could all be simply and elegantly structured, but jumbled together to form a complex and messily structured universe!
13.
Each of the following arguments ████████ ██████ █████████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ███████
a
Each part of ████ ███ ██ ██████ █████████ ███████████ █████████ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ████████ ████ ██ ███████████ █████ ██ █████
This argument tells us that all of the parts of a whole have a certain quality (the parts of the car are almost perfectly engineered). On that basis, the argument concludes that the whole must share the same quality (the car itself must be nearly perfectly engineered). Like the stimulus, this argument commits the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing part vs. whole, wherein the author assumes that what’s true about the individual parts of something must also be true about the thing itself.
b
Each part of ████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ██████
No flaw. If each part of the desk is made of metal, then the desk itself must be made of metal! Unlike the stimulus, (B) is a valid argument, because the attribute it names in the parts of the whole (being made of metal) is something that must be true of the whole, as well: you cannot rearrange metal to make it not metal, as you can rearrange simple particles to make them form a complex whole.
c
Each brick in ████ ████ ██ ████████████ █████████ ████ ████ ██ ████████████
This argument tells us that all of the parts of a whole have a certain quality (each brick in the wall is rectangular). On that basis, the argument concludes that the whole must share the same quality (the wall must be rectangular). Like the stimulus, this argument commits the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing part vs. whole, wherein the author assumes that what’s true about the individual parts of something must also be true about the thing itself.
d
Each piece of ████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████ █████ ██ ███████
This argument tells us that all of the parts of a whole have a certain quality (each piece of wood in the chair is sturdy). On that basis, the argument concludes that the whole must share the same quality (the chair is sturdy). Like the stimulus, this argument commits the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing part vs. whole, wherein the author assumes that what’s true about the individual parts of something must also be true about the thing itself.
e
Each sentence in ████ █████ ██ ████ ████████████ █████████ ████ ██ █ ████████████████ ██████
This argument tells us that all of the parts of a whole have a certain quality (each sentence in the novel is well constructed). On that basis, the argument concludes that the whole must share the same quality (the novel must be well constructed). Like the stimulus, this argument commits the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing part vs. whole, wherein the author assumes that what’s true about the individual parts of something must also be true about the thing itself.