Self-study
Weingarten claims that keeping animals in zoos is unethical. ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████████ ████████████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██████████ ████████ █████ ██████████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ███████████ ██████ ███ █████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ █████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Weingarten argues that keeping animals in zoos is unethical, because it involves placing animals in unnatural environments just for humans’ amusement.
The author concludes that we should reject Weingarten’s claim that zoos are unethical. This is supported by the fact that Weingarten thinks owning pets is OK, and keeping pets involves placing animals in unnatural environments just for humans’ amusement.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author thinks that pointing out a contradiction in Weingarten’s own beliefs constitutes a reason to reject Weingarten’s conclusion. But his conclusion — that zoos are unethical — can still be true, despite Weingarten having some beliefs that aren’t consistent with his own reasoning.
13.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
a
takes for granted ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ████
The author doesn’t assume that Weingarten has pets. The premise concerns Weingarten’s opinion about owning pets and how this contradicts his own reasoning for believing that zoos are unethical.
b
inappropriately generalizes from █ ██████████ ████
The author doesn’t argue that because Weingarten has one specific belief, he must have these other beliefs. Nor does the conclusion concern anyone else besides Weingarten. The reasoning attempts to point out an inconsistency in Weingarten’s views. That’s not generalizing.
c
misrepresents the conclusion ██ ███ ████████ ████████
The author does not misrepresent Weingarten’s claim that keeping animals in zoos is unethical. The author describes that claim accurately and doesn’t change the meaning of it.
d
takes a necessary █████████ ███ █ ██████████ █████ █████████ ██ █ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███ █████ ██
The argument isn’t based on conditional logic, so there’s no confusing of sufficient and necessary conditions. We don’t get anything that’s necessary in order to be unethical.
e
rejects a claim ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ █████████ █████ ███████ ████ ████████████ ████ ██
The author rejects Weingarten’s claim that zoo are unethical merely on the grounds that Weingarten believes that keeping pets is OK. Even though his view on pets is inconsistent with his view about zoos, that doesn’t constitute evidence that his conclusion is wrong.