Self-study
Letter to the editor: Sites are needed for disposal of contaminated dredge spoils from the local harbor. ████████ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ █████ ██████ ██████████ ███████ ███████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ██████ ████ ██████ █████████ ████████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ███ ██ ███████████ ████ ██ ███████ █████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The letter writer argues that the editor’s plan for waste disposal will harm commercial fishing because many people signed petitions opposing it.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument is flawed because the evidence it cites is irrelevant to its conclusion. Just because people oppose the plan does not mean that the plan will damage fishing operations. These people could oppose the plan for any number of reasons. Even if they’re concerned about commercial fishing, there’s no reason to believe that they have the ability to accurately judge which plan is better for it. The fact that a group of random people oppose a plan tells us nothing about what the effects of that plan will be.
10.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████
a
The argument distorts ███ ████████ ████ ██ █ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ██████████
The argument only refers to the editor’s proposal without even describing what it is, so don't know whether there's distortion.
b
The argument fails ██ █████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ██ █ ██████ ████
The letter writer never endorses the plan to use sand-capped pits. He only claims that the editor’s proposal will harm commercial fishing.
c
The argument attempts ██ █████████ █ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ █████████████ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████
There’s no reason to believe that the letter writer has a personal interest in this matter, nor is there any indication that he doesn’t care about the truth.
d
The argument's conclusion ██ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ████ ███████████ ██████████
This describes one of the problems with the evidence cited. There’s no reason to believe that the opinions of petition-signers indicate anything about what effects a waste-disposal plan will have on commercial fishing.
e
The argument takes ███ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████████ ████████
The writer’s conclusion is simply that the proposal in question will hurt commercial fishing. Whether there are other viable plans or not is irrelevant.