Self-study
When politicians describe their opponents' positions, they typically make those positions seem implausible and unattractive. ██ █████████ ████████ ███ ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ █████ ██ █████ █████ █████████ ███████ █████ █████████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████████ ███████████ ███████████ ██████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ █████████ ██ ████ ██████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████ █████ ████████████ ██████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that politicians could persuade more voters if they made their opponents’ positions seem plausible and attractive before arguing against them. As a premise, the author explains that scholars successfully utilize this method to make their positions more persuasive to their colleagues.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of utilizing an analogy that isn’t analogous enough, in which the author assumes that because two things are similar in one respect, they must be similar in another respect. Specifically, the author of this stimulus assumes that because politicians and scholars both try to convince others of their views, the methods that work for scholars will work well for politicians, too.
4.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██
a
fails to address ███ ███████████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of utilizing an analogy that isn’t analogous enough. The author assumes that because politicians and scholars both try to convince others of their views, the methods that work for scholars will work well for politicians, too.
b
fails to account ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███████
This isn’t relevant to the argument. Whether or not it’s difficult to come up with charitable positions, the author’s argument is that politicians should do so.
c
focuses on the ███████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █████████████ ████ ██████ █████ ██████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ █████████
The politicians’ and scholars’ audiences are quite different—one is trying to appeal to voters and the other is targeting professional scholars—so it doesn’t matter if the different argumentation styles might be suited to similar audiences.
d
takes for granted ████ ████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████ ███
The author tells us in the argument’s context and premise that politicians and scholars attempt to persuade voters and colleagues. This is a fact the author provides as part of the foundation for the argument, not a flaw in the argument structure itself.
e
presumes, without giving ██████████████ ████ ███████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ ████████████ ████ ████ ████ █████ █████ █████████
The author doesn’t say that politicians always paint their opponents’ positions as implausible, just that they “typically” do. We don’t know if she makes this presumption. Even if she did, it would be irrelevant to the conclusion that politicians should adopt scholars’ methods.