Self-study
Agriculture researcher: Because of its slow decomposition, Support paper is ineffective as a mulch to guard against soil erosion. ████████ █ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ █████ ██████████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ █████ █████ █████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ █████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ████ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ██████
Summarize Argument
The researcher concludes that farmers would benefit more from using a mixture of paper and manure as mulch rather than using either material alone. As support, the researcher notes that paper mulch by itself is not effective at preventing soil erosion, while the mixture of paper and manure is very effective. Additionally, the mixture was shown in test plots to reduce soil erosion, and both paper and manure cost roughly the same.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The researcher doesn’t provide evidence about the merits of using manure alone, but she concludes that a mixture of paper and manure is better than using either material alone. The researcher overlooks the possibility that manure alone would be the best material.
We know that the mixture is better than using paper alone, but we don’t know enough to say that the mixture is better than using manure alone.
3.
The agriculture researcher's argument is ██████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████ ████
a
paper by itself ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████
This is descriptively accurate, but it isn’t the flaw. This isn’t evidence that the argument needs to provide. We know that the mulch material needs to prevent or decrease soil erosion, and paper can’t do that. We don’t need to prove that paper doesn’t contribute to erosion.
b
mulch containing paper ███ ██████ █████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████████ ████ █████
The argument actually does demonstrate that mulch containing paper and manure works better than mulch containing only paper. We know that paper is ineffective, and in the test plots, the mixture of paper and manure was very effective.
c
mulch containing paper ███ ██████ █████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████████ ████ ██████
This is the flaw. The researcher concludes that the mixture is better than manure or paper alone. We know that the mixture is better than paper alone, but there is no evidence that the mixture is better than manure alone.
d
mulch containing paper ███ ██████ █████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ █████
It’s true that the argument doesn’t provide this evidence, but this isn’t the flaw––the argument doesn’t need this evidence. The entire argument is about which materials are most effective for mulch; non-mulch methods of preventing erosion are irrelevant to the argument.
e
mulch of pure ██████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ███
This is descriptively accurate, but it’s not the flaw. Even if this information was included, the conclusion about the merits of using mixture of paper and manure over manure on its own still wouldn’t be supported.