A group of citizens opposes developing a nearby abandoned railroad grade into a hiking trail. ███ ███████ █████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████████ █████████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ████████
Some citizens argue that, because users of a proposed trail would likely litter an area, that the development of the trail should not proceed.
The author asserts that because most trail users will be dedicated hikers who care about the environment, the particular complaint about hikers’ likelihood to litter is groundless. Thus, the author concludes, trail development should proceed.
The author assumes that showing the citizens’ support for their conclusion is wrong proves that the citizens’ conclusion is wrong. In other words, the author overlooks the possibility that even if the particular objection concerning littering is groundless, we still should not proceed with development of the trail.
The argument above is flawed ██ ████ ██
bases its conclusion ██████ ██ █ █████ ████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ████
illicitly infers that ███████ ████ ██████ ██ █ ███ ███ █ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ████████
illicitly assumes as ███ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████
illicitly infers that ██ █████████ ██ █ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ████████████ █ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████
attacks the citizens ██ ███ █████ ██████ ████ █████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████