Self-study
Automobile executive: Our critics say that the communications devices installed in our automobiles are dangerously distracting to drivers. ███ █████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ██████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The executive concludes that critics are wrong about her communications devices being dangerously distracting. She supports this by saying that drivers who want to use communications devices will do so regardless, and that these devices are safer because they are easier to use.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The executive makes the unwarranted assumption that the devices are safer just because they're easier to use. But even if they are safer than other devices, she still doesn't address the critics' concern that they are dangerously distracting, nor does she give any reason to believe that they are not dangerously distracting. The fact that they're easier to use and that drivers will use them anyway doesn't change the fact that they might still be dangerously distracting.
16.
The reasoning in the automobile ███████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██
a
attempts to apply █ ███████ █████████ ██ █ █████████ ██ █████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████
The executive doesn’t attempt to apply any principle at all. She also doesn’t wrongly apply a generalization to a specific situation. Instead, she draws a conclusion about the communications devices based on premises that are also about the communications devices.
b
fails to address ███ ███████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██
The executive fails to address the critics’ main point: that the communications devices are dangerously distracting. Just because they're easier to use and drivers will use them anyway doesn't change the fact that they might still be dangerously distracting.
c
treats a condition ████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ████ ██████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The executive doesn’t make this mistake; her argument doesn’t rely on conditional logic. Instead, she counters the critics’ position without actually addressing their criticism.
d
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ██████████████ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████████
Actually, the executive explicitly claims that her communications devices are safer with respect to driver distraction. She doesn’t assume that all devices are the same.
e
is based on ████████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning. The executive doesn’t make this mistake. Her premises may not support her conclusion well, but they are distinct from her conclusion.