Self-study
Police captain: Support The chief of police has indicated that gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100 count as graft. ████████ █ ████ ████ █████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ███ ██████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the recent accusations of graft in his precinct are unfounded. This is based on the fact that no officer in the precinct has ever taken a gift of cash or objects valued at more than $100. In addition, if someone accepts gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100, that constitutes graft.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that there are other things that also count as graft besides gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100. In other words, the author assumes that the only things that are considered graft are gifts of cash or objects valued at more than $100.
18.
The reasoning in the police █████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
bases a rebuttal ██ ███████████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ █████ ████ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████
The argument isn’t based on a limited sample of officers. The premise asserts that “no officer in my precinct” has ever accept gifts of cash/objects valued at more than $100. The conclusion is about the author’s precinct. The conclusion isn’t about a broader group of officers.
b
fails to consider ████ █████ ███ ██ █████ █████████ ██ █████ ███████ █████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██████
The author overlooks that there may be other actions that constitute graft. If other things can count as graft, then even if the officers did not accept the gifts discussed, that doesn’t absolve them of potentially having committed graft through other actions.
c
bases a claim █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ███████████
The author’s premise doesn’t involve an appeal to the character of the officers. The premise establishes that the officers have not committed one action that would count is graft. This doesn’t establish anything about the officers’ character.
d
takes for granted ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████
The conclusion concerns only accusations of graft. The author does not assert anything about accusations of corruption.
e
relies on a ███████ ████ ███████████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ███ ████████
The author’s premise is that no officer in the precinct has taken gifts of cash/objects at more than $100 dollars. This doesn’t contradict the conclusion, which is that accusations of graft are unfounded.