Self-study
Ecologist: One theory attributes the ability of sea butterflies to avoid predation to their appearance, while another attributes this ability to various chemical compounds they produce. ████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ █████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███ ███ ███████████ ███████ ███ ███ ███████████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ██████████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The ecologist rejects a hypothesis that sea butterflies deter predators with chemicals they produce, citing an experiment where each chemical was tested one at a time and none was found to deter predators on its own.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is an example of the part-to-whole fallacy because the ecologist ignores the possibility that, while no individual chemical appears to deter predators on its own, some combination of chemicals could do so when mixed together. The experiment only tested each chemical one at a time, though the chemicals would presumably all be present together in a living sea butterfly.
19.
The reasoning in the ecologist's ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
a
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ████████████ ████ ████ █████
The argument doesn’t assume that the theories cannot both be true because it never assesses the theory about their appearance. The ecologist only rejects the chemical explanation.
b
draws a conclusion █████ █ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ █ ███████████ ███████████
The argument never mentions a correlation. The experiment was meant to demonstrate that chemicals don’t produce the effect of deterring predators, but was flawed because it only tested chemicals one at a time.
c
treats a condition ██████████ ███ ███ ████████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ █ █████████ ████████ ███ ████ ███████
There’s no sufficient condition for avoiding predators, nor does the ecologist claim that anything is necessary to avoid predators. The flaw is citing an experiment that isolated chemicals rather than tested them together.
d
infers, from the █████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ █ ███ ███ █ ███████ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ██ █ █████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██████
This describes how the ecologist uses an experiment that shows that no individual chemical deters predators, but ignores the possibility that multiple chemicals could deter predators when mixed together.
e
draws a conclusion ████ ██████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████
This describes circular reasoning, where an argument assumes its conclusion in one of its premises. The conclusion that compounds are not responsible for predator avoidance is not stated in the argument’s premises.