Self-study
A group of citizens opposes developing a nearby abandoned railroad grade into a hiking trail. ███ ███████ █████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████████ █████████████ ███████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
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.
Identify and Describe Flaw
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.
11.
The argument above is flawed ██ ████ ██
a
bases its conclusion ██████ ██ █ █████ ████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ████
The author points out the citizens’ argument is weak — the citizens’ premise concerning likelihood of littering is groundless. But this doesn’t prove that trail development should proceed. The citizens’ conclusion can still be right, even if the argument in support of it is weak.
b
illicitly infers that ███████ ████ ██████ ██ █ ███ ███ █ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ████████
The author doesn’t cite to a premise stating that each member of a set (trail users) has great concern for the environment. The premise says “most” trail users will have great concern; this isn’t a claim about “each” trail user.
c
illicitly assumes as ███ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████
(C) describes circular reasoning. None of the author’s conclusions are assumed in the premise. The premise is that most trail users will have great concern for the environment; this idea is not restated in any of the author’s conclusions.
d
illicitly infers that ██ █████████ ██ █ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ████████████ █ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████
The author’s premise asserts that “most” trail users will have great concern for the environment. This is simply a fact that we accept as true, because it is a premise. The author did not try to infer this premise from some other claim about a few trail users.
e
attacks the citizens ██ ███ █████ ██████ ████ █████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████
The author does not attack the citizens. The author attacks the argument the citizens gave in support of their conclusion.