Self-study
Support Stallworth claims that she supported the proposal to build a new community center. ██ ███████ ████ █████████ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ████ ████████ ██████████ █████████ █████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ █████████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████████
Method of Reasoning
The argument explains the claim of a person (Stallworth claims she supported the proposal to build a new community center) and describes what would’ve happened (the center would’ve received government approval) if another person (Henning) had committed to the same claim as the first person (if Henning had supported the proposal). Then, because the thing didn’t happen (the center didn’t receive approval), the argument moves to a conclusion (Henning failed to back the proposal).
Identify and Describe Flaw
This argument is flawed because it favors one possibility over an equally likely possibility without any reasoning. Since the community center didn’t receive government approval, we know that either Stallworth didn’t support the proposal, Henning didn’t support the proposal, or they both didn’t support the proposal. The argument errs by concluding, with no evidence, that Henning is the one who didn’t support the proposal.
25.
Which one of the following █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
According to the ██ █████ ███ ███████ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ ███ █████████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██████ █████████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ███████
The argument explains the claim (the accident was on Aylmer Street) of an entity (the news), describes what would’ve happened (Morgan couldn’t have witnessed the accident from his kitchen window) if the claim was true, then concludes that the claim (that Morgan witnessed the accident from his kitchen window) of another entity (the newspaper) must be untrue. This commits the same flaw as the stimulus of favoring one possibility over an equally likely possibility without any reasoning. (A) provides no evidence that the news’ claim was any more credible than the newspaper’s claim, so it’s flawed to conclude that the newspaper was wrong.
b
According to the ████ ███████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ █ ███████ ██████████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██ █████ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██████
No flaw. Determining which party to blame for an issue is subjective, so the author is justified in deciding who he thinks is to blame for an issue.
c
According to Kapoor, ███ ███████████████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████
Wrong flaw. (C) errs by acting as if Kapoor’s and Galindo’s claims can’t both be true. Even if the disposal site is on unsuitable land, the site may not pose an imminent danger to the community. The hazardous waste may just be an imminent danger to the site it’s on. The stimulus, meanwhile, errs because it favors one claim over another without any support for either.
d
According to Harris's █████████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ █ ████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ██████████ █████████ ████████ ███████████ ██████ ██ ████ █ ████ ██████ ███ ██████
Wrong flaw. (D) errs by believing the claim (that Harris favors the interest of property developers) of a group (Harris’s political rivals) to be true, without any evidence, even though that group has incentives to lie. Harris’s political rivals could be slandering Harris to try to prevent her from being elected. The stimulus, meanwhile, errs because it favors one claim over another without any evidence to support either claim.
e
According to the ██████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ████████████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ █████████████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ████████████ ███████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████████
Wrong flaw. (E) errs by acting as if the government’s figures can’t be compatible with the fact that the region lost thousands of manufacturing jobs in the last six months. It’s entirely possible that both the regional unemployment rate declined and the region lost thousands of jobs in the same period. The stimulus, alternatively, errs by favoring one claim over another without any evidence to support either claim.