Self-study
Politician: Union leaders argue that increases in multinational control of manufacturing have shifted labor to nations without strong worker protections, resulting in a corresponding global decrease in workers' average wages. █████ ████ █████ ███████ ████ █ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████ █████ ██████ █████ ████ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ██ ██████ █████████████ ████████ █████ ███████████ ██████ ██████ ████ █████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that legislators should reject the union leaders’ argument. This is based on the fact that the union leaders have a vested interest in making the argument they did.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author attacks the source of an argument rather than addressing the merits of the argument. Whether the union leaders have an interest in making the argument they did has no bearing on whether the argument is strong. The author should have evaluated the substance of the union leaders’ claims, not the union leaders’ interests or potential motivations.
19.
The reasoning in the politician's ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
a
treats the mere ████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██ █████ ██████
The author doesn’t try to cast doubt on “all of the viewpoints” of the union leaders. He simply tries to cast doubt on the specific argument they made, as described in the first sentence.
b
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ██████ █████ █████████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███████████
The issue isn’t that we can clearly discern the union leaders’ motivation — the issue is that the author thinks they are motivated to make the argument they made. What matters is that they might be motivated to make the argument, not just that we can identify their motivation.
c
treats circumstances potentially █████████ ███ █████ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████ ████████ ████████
The author treats the fact the leaders have an interest in seeing wages remain high as sufficient to discredit the argument. This is flawed, beacuse even if their argument might be affected by their interests/motivation, that doesn’t discredit the substance of their argument.
d
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ████
The conclusion is just that legislators should reject “this” argument, as in the argument described in the first sentence. The leaders might have other arguments; the conclusion doesn’t concern those other arguments. So the author doesn’t assume those other arguments don’t exist.
e
presumes, without providing █████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ █████████ ██ █████████████ ███████ ██ █████████████
The author is responding to a particular argument made by certain union leaders. The author doesn’t assume that this argument is made by the leaders of all unions; just the particular union leaders mentioned in the first sentence.