Self-study
Land developer: In a certain nation, stringent Support regulations prevent private landowners from building on their land if any endangered species is present on it. █████ ███████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ █ ██████ █████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ██████████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ████ ████████████
Summarize Argument
Endangered species probably won’t be harmed by the removal of certain regulations because those regulations discourage some people from protecting these species.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The land developer establishes that these regulations discourage from protecting these species, and then concludes that those species probably won’t be harmed if these regulations disappear. But establishing one downside of the regulations doesn’t mean that there aren’t any positive, protective benefits to said species, or that eliminating those benefits wouldn’t cause the species harm.
18.
The reasoning in the land ███████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████
a
It confuses a █████████ █████ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ █ █████████ █████ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a sufficient condition for a necessary one, or vice versa.. The author doesn’t make this mistake, and her argument doesn’t rely on conditional reasoning. She points out a downside and assumes this must mean there aren’t benefits that, if removed, would cause harm.
b
It justifies a █████ ██████████ █ █████ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ██ ██████████ ██████ ████ █████ █████████
There are no value judgments in this argument; the land developer does not not voice anything akin to “...and this would be good/bad,” or any other kind of value judgment. This means that the first half of (B) is not descriptively accurate.
c
It unjustifiably overlooks ███ ███████████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ███████ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██████████████ ███████ ██ █████
If true, (C) would damage the argument, which makes it a flaw.
It could be, for example, that this restriction on building is effective enough at protecting these species’ habitat that, if taken away, the species would be harmed.
d
It fails to ████ ████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███████████
This would not damage the argument, so it cannot be a flaw. Whether or not these groups could have common interest doesn’t affect the argument.
e
It fails to ███████ ███ █████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████
The regulations don’t apply to private landowners without endangered species on their land. Their reactions won’t affect the argument.