Why do these seem like resolving paradox questions instead of just pointing out the flaw and structure of argument. This goes contrary to what the teaching are suppose to be about.
I personally believe think answer choice E should have been worded as "overlooks the possibility that..." since from the stimulus, we cannot determine if the future conduct might be true or not.
@PennJoon2025 When AC E says "overlooks the fact that," it is referring to how the proposal would apply only to the future. It does not refer to whether or not Sigerson will continue to accept contributions, and even if he will, it still doesn't affect the honesty of the proposal itself.
I thought one of the answers was going to be that "the argument attacks the person making a claim rather than the claim itself". Got it right but took a second.
I got it E right within the time - I think the phrasing is a bit confusing, but the way I see it, E is right because the argument attacks the proposing politician on the basis of their own previous actions. But forgets that yeah just because they received funds themselves in the past, doesn't mean they can do something ethically to prevent this from happening in the future. We can't just target the guy for taking previous monies, if his entire proposal is to change that. To me it seems like the politician is aware of the issue since he's gotten funds before, so he wants to change that and going forward all future politicians will not have the possibility of this ethical issue/conflict of interest. So the author just looks at the past, but doesn't realize the intention is to avoid what that own politician did so that others do not. So that is how I got E.
I'm a bit confused as to how the phrasing of E. is an example of a source attack, which is the flaw in this reasoning. It seems to me like even if E. WAS NOT true, the argument would still have the source attack flaw.
E. says: "overlooks the fact that Sigerson's proposal would apply only to the future conduct of city politicians."
If Sigerson's proposal was retrospective, i.e. it applied to past conduct, wouldn't the argument still be flawed?
I'm imagining a scenario where the stimulus goes something like this: "Sigerson argues that the city should adopt ethical guidelines that retrospectively penalize politicians who accept campaign contributions from companies that do business with the city. Sigerson's proposal is dishonest, however, because he has taken contributions from such companies throughout his career in city politics."
This argument is STILL flawed because the argument is based on Sigerson's personal character/past acts, and does not actually challenge the reasoning of the argument. It is not dishonest for Sigerson to be arguing in favor of his own punishment for his own misdeed; in fact, it is arguably very honest.
The problem in the original argument is not whether Sigerson's proposal would apply to past or future actions, but rather that's Sigerson's actions have no bearing on the proposal regardless. So. E. doesn't seem to actually be addressing the core flaw in the argument. Even if we "fixed" the argument according to E., wouldn't it still be flawed?
All his reasoning does is tell us why the other answers are wrong. There is very little explanation as to why this one is the same as pointing out a source attack which is quite frustrating!
In many ways you are right. This is a very good example of an ad hominem argument (attacking the speaker instead of engaging with the topic) but it is a very bad example of an answer choice that homes in on the nature of the flaw as an ad hominem attack.
It is still the best answer, however. It targets a legitimate flaw even if it does not really target the one he is trying to focus on.
Because the conclusion focuses on how this proposal is dishonest, pointing out that he would only technically be dishonest if "the rule was in effect and he continued to take bribes" is a legitimate flaw to target. Once, we establish taking bribes while it is legal, then trying to close a loophole you still benefit from is not dishonest the whole argument falls apart.
It is closer to weaken than a real solid flaw question though. I agree with you.
How would the correction of D he made make it the right answer? He said we could edit it by saying "rejects a proposal on the grounds that the person offering it has committed the same act that the proposal is trying to prevent" but didn't he also say that we can't use his past actions as they don't matter if the proposal is for the future? And isn't that exact reason why the correct answer is the correct one? I might totally be overlooking something but I was confused.
I may not be right, but I think you're forgetting that the future part only exists in the correct answer. Without that, technically, the argument still stands that Sigerson's argument should be rejected on the basis that he did those same things before. We don't know the technicalities of Sigerson's argument; whether it will punish those who did it in the past, present, or future, etc. It is only through answer choice E that we figure out that Sigerson's plan is forward-facing. Therefore, D can be a correct answer if E doesn't exist. They just can't exist simultaneously.
Remember, these are flaw questions. The edit to D would accurately point out the flaw, which is what the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on. The flaw is that the argument in the stimulus is an attack on Sigerson's character (or source attack) for being a hypocrite.
#feedback Broken record and all, but show all the answer choices before telling us which one is correct. It feels like such a waste of time to listen to 4 minutes of stimulus analysis only to be immediately told which answer is correct without being able to apply what we just listened to.
I think that is because this is more of a lesson where we don't try to get the answer right but rather take in what he is teaching. Although I must agree, if he shows us all the answers after going over the stimulus, gives us a chance to pause video then resume where he goes down the list is most helpful.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
34 comments
Why do these seem like resolving paradox questions instead of just pointing out the flaw and structure of argument. This goes contrary to what the teaching are suppose to be about.
Should have been worded AD HOMINEM literally. Talking about a future is a bit confusing in the answer choices.
@TeklaCo Facts not sure how electing something for future possibility is similar to atatching the individual making the argument ???
@MarcosGuzman415 who tf knows I am so exhausted may God help us all
I personally believe think answer choice E should have been worded as "overlooks the possibility that..." since from the stimulus, we cannot determine if the future conduct might be true or not.
@PennJoon2025 When AC E says "overlooks the fact that," it is referring to how the proposal would apply only to the future. It does not refer to whether or not Sigerson will continue to accept contributions, and even if he will, it still doesn't affect the honesty of the proposal itself.
I love this flaw, I feel like it is the easiest to identify
I love when one of my predictions is in the answer choices
I thought one of the answers was going to be that "the argument attacks the person making a claim rather than the claim itself". Got it right but took a second.
I got it E right within the time - I think the phrasing is a bit confusing, but the way I see it, E is right because the argument attacks the proposing politician on the basis of their own previous actions. But forgets that yeah just because they received funds themselves in the past, doesn't mean they can do something ethically to prevent this from happening in the future. We can't just target the guy for taking previous monies, if his entire proposal is to change that. To me it seems like the politician is aware of the issue since he's gotten funds before, so he wants to change that and going forward all future politicians will not have the possibility of this ethical issue/conflict of interest. So the author just looks at the past, but doesn't realize the intention is to avoid what that own politician did so that others do not. So that is how I got E.
damn, time to close the laptop for the day, no idea how E works here lmao
I'm a bit confused as to how the phrasing of E. is an example of a source attack, which is the flaw in this reasoning. It seems to me like even if E. WAS NOT true, the argument would still have the source attack flaw.
E. says: "overlooks the fact that Sigerson's proposal would apply only to the future conduct of city politicians."
If Sigerson's proposal was retrospective, i.e. it applied to past conduct, wouldn't the argument still be flawed?
I'm imagining a scenario where the stimulus goes something like this: "Sigerson argues that the city should adopt ethical guidelines that retrospectively penalize politicians who accept campaign contributions from companies that do business with the city. Sigerson's proposal is dishonest, however, because he has taken contributions from such companies throughout his career in city politics."
This argument is STILL flawed because the argument is based on Sigerson's personal character/past acts, and does not actually challenge the reasoning of the argument. It is not dishonest for Sigerson to be arguing in favor of his own punishment for his own misdeed; in fact, it is arguably very honest.
The problem in the original argument is not whether Sigerson's proposal would apply to past or future actions, but rather that's Sigerson's actions have no bearing on the proposal regardless. So. E. doesn't seem to actually be addressing the core flaw in the argument. Even if we "fixed" the argument according to E., wouldn't it still be flawed?
#help
All his reasoning does is tell us why the other answers are wrong. There is very little explanation as to why this one is the same as pointing out a source attack which is quite frustrating!
Couldn't agree more - I am very confused
In many ways you are right. This is a very good example of an ad hominem argument (attacking the speaker instead of engaging with the topic) but it is a very bad example of an answer choice that homes in on the nature of the flaw as an ad hominem attack.
It is still the best answer, however. It targets a legitimate flaw even if it does not really target the one he is trying to focus on.
Because the conclusion focuses on how this proposal is dishonest, pointing out that he would only technically be dishonest if "the rule was in effect and he continued to take bribes" is a legitimate flaw to target. Once, we establish taking bribes while it is legal, then trying to close a loophole you still benefit from is not dishonest the whole argument falls apart.
It is closer to weaken than a real solid flaw question though. I agree with you.
I need help with identifying a sufficient condition and a necessary condition
bro you gotta go back and take all the foundational courses
Philosophy has slightly helped me here. This is the fallacy of ad hominen I believe.
Yes, correct. I believe it would have the subclassification of ad hominem, tu quoque.
Btw, I like your profile picture.
Thank you! I do Jiujitsu and I have a group of friends there and we created it.
"I have stolen many cars in the past"
-J.Y Ping
I thought E at first but it was the word only that threw me off.
How would the correction of D he made make it the right answer? He said we could edit it by saying "rejects a proposal on the grounds that the person offering it has committed the same act that the proposal is trying to prevent" but didn't he also say that we can't use his past actions as they don't matter if the proposal is for the future? And isn't that exact reason why the correct answer is the correct one? I might totally be overlooking something but I was confused.
I may not be right, but I think you're forgetting that the future part only exists in the correct answer. Without that, technically, the argument still stands that Sigerson's argument should be rejected on the basis that he did those same things before. We don't know the technicalities of Sigerson's argument; whether it will punish those who did it in the past, present, or future, etc. It is only through answer choice E that we figure out that Sigerson's plan is forward-facing. Therefore, D can be a correct answer if E doesn't exist. They just can't exist simultaneously.
Remember, these are flaw questions. The edit to D would accurately point out the flaw, which is what the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on. The flaw is that the argument in the stimulus is an attack on Sigerson's character (or source attack) for being a hypocrite.
Sigerson couldn't say no to my bribes to build 3 new Child Rat Casinos in the city
lol
Which lessons in this section talks about sufficient and necessary conditions? I literally can't find them anywhere.
https://7sage.com/lesson/confusing-sufficiency-for-necessity/
https://7sage.com/lesson/denying-the-sufficient-condition/?ss_completed_lesson=25658
https://7sage.com/lesson/affirming-the-necessary-condition/?ss_completed_lesson=25583
#feedback Broken record and all, but show all the answer choices before telling us which one is correct. It feels like such a waste of time to listen to 4 minutes of stimulus analysis only to be immediately told which answer is correct without being able to apply what we just listened to.
agreed
I think that is because this is more of a lesson where we don't try to get the answer right but rather take in what he is teaching. Although I must agree, if he shows us all the answers after going over the stimulus, gives us a chance to pause video then resume where he goes down the list is most helpful.
There's a tab above the video called 'Quick View' that lets you preview the question and answer choices.
weird question