Self-study
Throughout a certain nation, electricity has actually become increasingly available to people in urban areas while energy production has been subsidized to help residents of rural areas gain access to electricity. ████████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ █████ ███████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████████ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the energy subsidy failed to achieve its intended purpose of helping residents of rural areas gain access to electricity. As support, the author says that even with the subsidy, many of the most isolated rural populations don’t have access to electricity.
Identify and Describe Flaw
All we know is that “many” of the most isolated rural populations still don’t have access to electricity. It could be the case that the subsidy brought electricity to many (or even most!) of the nation’s rural residents. With just the information given, it is a flawed argument to say that the energy subsidy failed to achieve its intended purpose.
12.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
takes for granted ████ ███ █████████ ████████ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ███████
This is descriptively inaccurate. The argument doesn’t assume that rural areas would have gained access to electricity if the subsidy hadn’t existed.
b
takes for granted ████ ██ █ ███████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████
The argument doesn’t assume that if the subsidy benefits anyone other than those it was intended to help (like urban residents), then it has failed. This is not an assumption the author makes, nor is it the reason the author claims the subsidy failed.
c
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ████████████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████
This is descriptively inaccurate. The only thing that the author says about the intention of the subsidy was that it was intended to help rural residents; the author does not assume that the subsidy was also intended to help others.
d
overlooks the possibility ████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██ █████ █████ █████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ███ ███████
While it’s true that the argument does not mention this possibility, it is not relevant. Even if it’s true that urban residents would have had trouble accessing electricity without the subsidy, the author’s argument is focused on rural residents’ access to electricity.
e
fails to take ████ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██ ████ █████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███
This is the flaw. Since all we know is that “many” rural residents don’t have electricity, we don’t know enough to say that the subsidy failed. It could certainly be true that many other rural residents gained access to electricity thanks to the subsidy, making it a success.