Beck: Our computer program estimates municipal automotive use based on weekly data. ████ █████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████████
Beck concludes that the computer program for estimating weekly municipal automotive use is accurate, counter to the questions of some staff. This is supported by the claim that the program’s figures are consistent every week.
Beck uses information about consistency to draw a conclusion about accuracy, which presumes that consistency guarantees accuracy. This overlooks the possibility that, for example, the program could be inaccurate by the same amount every time, making it consistent but still inaccurate.
The reasoning in Beck's argument ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██
fails to establish ████ ███████████ ██ █ ████ █████████ █████████████ ████ ████████
Beck doesn’t claim that consistency is a more important consideration than accuracy, but rather that consistency is proof of accuracy.
fails to consider ███ █████████ ████████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ███████
Beck is only discussing the program’s accuracy in the task of estimating municipal automotive use, so other tasks aren’t relevant.
takes for granted ████ ███ █████████ ██████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██████████
Beck actually assumes the opposite of this: that the program’s output would not be consistent if its estimates were inaccurate. In other words, that the program’s output being consistent means its estimates must be accurate.
regards accuracy as ███ ████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███ █████████ █████
Beck isn’t talking about accuracy as a criterion for judging the program’s value, just claiming that the program is indeed accurate.
fails to consider ████ ███ ███████ █████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██████
Beck’s argument assumes that consistent output means the program is accurate, but this overlooks the possibility that the program is consistent but still inaccurate.