Self-study
Support A new treatment for muscle pain that looked very promising was tested in three separate studies. ████████ ███ ███████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████████
Method of Reasoning
The argument proceeds by describing problems with some of the evidence that a new treatment for muscle pain is effective. Because it may lack compelling positive evidence, the argument concludes that the new treatment is likely ineffective.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter example of an argument attempting to establish that a claim is false by pointing out a lack of support for that claim. The flaw lies in assuming that a claim is false simply because there isn't compelling support for it. Given that the evidence for the drug’s effectiveness is problematic, the argument should simply conclude that the drug’s effectiveness is uncertain. The drug could still be effective even if the studies supporting that judgment are flawed.
11.
The flawed nature of the ████████ █████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ████████████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████ ████
a
since the judges ██ █ ██████ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ████████ ███ █████████ █ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██ ████████ █ ███ ███
This establish that a claim is false by pointing out a lack of support for that claim—the same flaw as the stimulus. The cake’s victory in this contest may not prove that it’s a good cake, but it’s wrong to assume that it’s therefore a bad cake.
b
since some people ███ ████ ██████ █████ ███ █████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ████████ ████
Wrong flaw. This assumes that because certain people don’t achieve a particular outcome (catching fish), those people aren’t seeking that outcome; it confuses intention and result. The stimulus instead argues that a lack of support means a claim is false.
c
since some foods ████ ████ ██████ ███████████ ██████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ████████ ████████████
Wrong flaw. This is a part-to-whole fallacy: it assumes that some people’s entire diets lack nutrition because certain parts of their diets do. The stimulus claims that a lack of support means a conclusion is false, a different flawed approach.
d
since all scarves ███ ██ █████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████████
Wrong flaw. This assumes something about the origin of a phenomenon based on what can be observed about the phenomenon today. On the other hand, the stimulus cites a lack of support for a claim to conclude that the claim is false.
e
since all members ██ ███ ████ ███████ ████ █ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████ ██ █████████████
Wrong flaw. This assumes something about the motivations of people based on a conflict of interest. The stimulus isn’t concerned with anyone’s motivation—it assumes that a claim is false just because it lacks support.