Self-study
Food critic: Support One of the chief competitors of Chris's restaurant claims that Chris's okra supplier cannot reliably supply fresh okra. ██ ████ █████ ████ █████ ███████ █████████ █████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ █████ ████████ █████ █████
Summarize Argument
The critic concludes that if the chief competitor of Chris’s restaurant is correct, then Chris’s customers can’t count on getting good seafood gumbo. The competitor’s claim is that Chris’s okra supplier cannot reliably supply fresh okra. The critic supports her conclusion by saying that the best seafood gumbo requires fresh okra.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The premise says that fresh okra is necessary for the best seafood gumbo, but the conclusion says that Chris’s customers can’t count on getting good seafood gumbo.
Just because something is necessary for the best gumbo doesn’t mean that it is necessary for good gumbo.
14.
The food critic's argument is ████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████ ██
a
relies upon testimony ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██████
This is not the flaw because the food critic’s conclusion is conditional. The critic’s conclusion says “if this claim were true,” which means that the critic is not taking the competitor’s words at face value. The critic is speaking about the hypothetical world in which the competitor’s words are true.
b
illicitly presumes that █ ████ ████ ████ █ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ███████████ █████ ████ ███████
The critic doesn’t claim that the gumbo isn’t fresh because one of the ingredients isn’t fresh. Instead, the critic says that the gumbo isn’t good because one of the ingredients isn’t fresh. Because the premises and conclusion talk about different qualities (good vs. fresh), this isn’t a part vs. whole flaw.
c
confuses a necessary █████████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ █████ ████ █ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ ███████ █████
This is descriptively inaccurate. The premise outlines a necessary condition for the best gumbo (fresh okra), but the argument doesn’t say that fresh okra is sufficient for good gumbo.
d
takes for granted ████ █ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ████ █ █████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████ █████
This is the flaw. The argument demonstrates that, if the competitor is correct, Chris’s gumbo lacks fresh okra, which is necessary for the best gumbo. However, the argument does not demonstrate that fresh okra is necessary for good gumbo. It could be true that Chris’s gumbo is good, even without fresh okra.
e
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ █████ ████ ████ █████ ████
It’s true that the argument fails to consider this possibility, but it’s irrelevant to the argument. The argument doesn’t need to show that Chris’s gumbo is never made with fresh okra (or that it’s never good gumbo); the conclusion just says that customers can’t “count on” getting good gumbo.