Self-study
Columnist: Support Many car manufacturers trumpet their cars' fuel economy under normal driving conditions. ███ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ █ ████ ██████ █ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ████ █████████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ████████ ███████ █████ ████████
Summarize Argument
The columnist concludes that car manufacturers likely inflate fuel efficiency numbers. He supports this by saying that, despite manufacturers highlighting their cars' fuel economy under normal driving conditions, he has never gotten close to the advertised fuel economy of any of the three cars that he's owned.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of using too small of a sample. The columnist draws a conclusion about the fuel economy claims of all manufacturers based on his experience with only three cars. But there are dozens of car manufacturers and thousands of car models on the market. Driving three cars isn’t a reliable way to test the fuel economy of every kind of car. Maybe most manufacturers’ claims are accurate and the columnist just purchased three bad cars.
The columnist also assumes that his driving conditions are “normal.”
15.
The reasoning in the columnist's ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
draws a conclusion ██ ███ █████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████
The columnist concludes that all manufacturers inflate fuel economy based on his experience with three cars. But with thousands of car models available, three cars is far too small a sample. Maybe most manufacturers’ claims are accurate and the columnist just got three bad cars.
b
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ███ ████ ██ █████ ████████████ ██████
The columnist never assumes that all driving conditions are the same everywhere— that would be an extreme assumption! He does assume that he drove his three cars in "normal driving conditions," but "normal" doesn't mean the same in every region.
c
overlooks the possibility ████ ███ ██████ ██ █ █████ █████ ███ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ██████████
The columnist doesn’t overlook this. If anything, he actually assumes that the source of fuel economy claims— the manufacturers— is unreliable. But he does so based on a sample that is too small.
d
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ █████████████ █████████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ██████████ █████████
The columnist never assumes that car manufacturers market cars that don’t meet minimum fuel efficiency standards. He just says that his three cars didn’t meet their advertised fuel economy; they might still have met the minimum requirements.
e
uses the term █████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the author uses the same term in different ways throughout the argument. The columnist doesn't make this mistake; he uses the term “fuel economy” clearly and consistently throughout his argument.