Self-study
Editorial: The main contention of Kramer's book is that coal companies are to blame for our region's economic difficulties. ██████ █████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ███████████ ███████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ ████████ ████████████████ █████████ ███████████████ ████ ████████ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The editorial concludes that Kramer’s contention that coal companies are responsible for the region’s economic problems is false. As evidence, it suggests that Kramer’s support is weak, since coal companies did invest significantly in other industries in the region.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming a conclusion is false simply because the argument in support of that conclusion is weak.
Here, the editorial argues that Kramer’s conclusion is false simply because his support— that those companies did not invest significantly in other industries in the region— is weak. The editorial successfully weakens Kramer’s support, but this isn’t enough to prove that his conclusion is false. Maybe coal companies are still responsible for the region’s economic problems, even though they did invest in other industries.
16.
The reasoning in the editorial's ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ████████
a
concludes that one █████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ███ █ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████ ███████
The editorial does conclude that coal companies are not to blame for the economic issues, but it doesn’t do so on the grounds that some other group is to blame. Instead, it does so merely on the grounds that Kramer’s support is weak.
b
concludes that a ████████ █████████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██ █████████ ████████
The editorial does conclude that Kramer’s statement is false, but it doesn’t do so on the grounds that Kramer’s statement would stain the coal industry’s reputation. Instead, it concludes that Kramer’s statement is false merely on the grounds that Kramer’s support is weak.
c
rejects an argument ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███ ██ ████████ ██████ ███ █████ ██
This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. But the editorial never claims that Kramer has ulterior motives against coal companies; it just points out that Kramer’s support is weak.
d
takes a sufficient █████████ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ███████████ ███████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██ █ █████████ █████████ ███ █████ ██████ ████ ██
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The editorial doesn’t make this mistake. It simply claims that the coal companies have made significant investments; it doesn't present a sufficient or a necessary condition for their having done so.
e
concludes that a ████████ █████████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ██
The editorial concludes that Kramer’s statement is false merely because his support is weak. But weakening his support isn’t enough to prove that his conclusion is false. Maybe coal companies are responsible for the economic issues, even though they invested in other industries.