Self-study
Byrne: Support One of our club's bylaws specifies that any officer who fails to appear on time for any one of the quarterly board meetings, or who misses two of our monthly general meetings, must be suspended. ███████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ███ █████ ██████ █ ███████ ███████ ████████ ██████████ ██████████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ █ █████████ █████ ████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Thibodeaux failed to appear on time for a quarterly board meeting. This is based on the fact that any officer who fails to appear on time to a quarterly board meeting or who misses 2 monthly meetings must be suspended. And, Thibodeaux is an officer who was suspended, but who did not miss 2 monthly meetings.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. Being late to a quarterly meetings and missing 2 monthly meetings are each sufficient for suspension. But they aren’t necessary for suspension. Thibodeaux might have been suspended for other reasons.
5.
The reasoning in Byrne's argument ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
a
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ████ ███████ ███████ ████████
We know that Thibodeaux didn’t miss any monthly meetings. Lateness to a monthly meeting is irrelevant, since we’re not told that this leads to a suspension. (Lateness to quarterly is sufficient for suspension, but we don’t know about lateness to monthly.)
b
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ █ ██████████ ███████ ████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████
The author assumes that nothing besides lateness to quarterly or missing 2 monthly could be sufficient for suspension. This overlooks the possibility that other things could also be sufficient for suspension. That’s why Thib. doesn’t have to have been late to a quarterly meeting.
c
takes for granted ████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ████ ██████████
The assumption required to establish the conclusion is the idea that there’s no other way to be suspended besides the two conditions mentioned. That assumption actually would be sufficient to establish the conclusion, so (C) doesn’t describe a flaw in this argument.
d
fails to specify ██ ████ █████ ███████ ████████ ██ █ ████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ████
The exact timing involved in being “late” is irrelevant. We can still label someone as “late” without knowing exactly how late they were.
e
does not specify ███ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████
The length of time Thibodeaux has been an officer is irrelevant. None of the conditions in the rule concerning suspension relate to years of experience as an officer.