Self-study
George: A well-known educator claims that children who are read to when they are very young are more likely to enjoy reading when they grow up than are children who were not read to. ███ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ██ █ █████ ███ ██ ██ █████ ██ ██████ █████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███████████
███████ ███ ███ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ██████
George's Argument
The educator says kids who are read to are more likely to enjoy reading as adults than kids who aren't. George disputes this with two cases: his cousin Emory was read to but doesn't read for pleasure, and George himself wasn't read to but now loves reading.
Anticipation
George is treating a probabilistic claim like a universal one. The educator didn't say every kid who's read to ends up loving reading. She said one group is more likely than the other. That's a claim about rates, and a rate claim allows for exceptions on both sides. Emory and George are exactly the kind of exceptions you'd expect to find even if the educator is right.
25.
Which one of the following █████████ █ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████████
a
He treats his ███ ██████████ ███ ███ ███████████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ █████ ███████
George doesn't claim his cases carry more weight because they're his. He just uses them as his evidence. Even if he had picked two strangers off the street, the argument would have the same problem: two cases can't refute a "more likely" claim.
b
He does not ███████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███ █ ██████
Book quality versus quantity never comes up. The dispute isn't about whether the right books were read, it's about whether two cases can counter a probabilistic claim.
c
He overlooks the ██████████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ █████████
The educator's claim is about enjoying reading as an adult, not about how relaxing reading is. Whether some reading is more relaxing than other reading has nothing to do with the argument.
d
He fails to █████████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████
Whether other educators share this educator's view doesn't change whether George's two cases refute the view. The argument's flaw is in how George tries to refute the claim, not in how popular the claim is among educators.
e
He attempts to ██████ █ ███████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████
This accurately describes the flaw. The educator's claim is a general claim ("more likely"), George's evidence is two nonconforming cases (Emory and himself), and the claim is consistent with such cases because a "more likely" claim allows for exceptions.