Self-study
Student: Conclusion My paper was not graded in accordance with the professor's stated criteria. ███ █████████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ █████ ███████████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ████████████ ████ ██ ███████████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ █████████ ███ ███ ████ ██ █████ █ ██
Summarize Argument
The student concludes that her paper wasn’t graded according to the stated criteria. As support, she points out that in order for a paper to get an A, its conclusions must be supported by reliable evidence. The student’s conclusions were supported by reliable evidence, but she got a B.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The student treats “reliable evidence” as sufficient for her paper getting an A, but according to her premises, “reliable evidence” is necessary.
In other words, an A paper must have reliable evidence, but just because the student’s paper has reliable evidence doesn’t necessarily mean she’ll get an A. So she can’t conclude that her paper wasn’t graded according to the professor’s criteria simply because she had reliable evidence but got a B.
8.
The reasoning in the student's ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
a
discusses the professor's ██████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████
The student does discuss the professor’s stated criteria, but she doesn’t do so to distract from her paper’s shortcomings. Instead, she discusses the professor’s criteria in order to apply it to her own paper, which she mistakenly concludes wasn’t graded according to the criteria.
b
attempts to draw ██ ██████████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ██████
The student doesn’t draw an evaluative (or prescriptive) conclusion. Instead, she draws a factual (or descriptive) conclusion from factual claims; those claims just don’t support her conclusion very well.
c
takes a condition ████ ██ █████ ███ ████████████ ███ █ ██████████ █████ ██ ██ █ █████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ █████
The student confuses necessary and sufficient conditions. She treats “reliable evidence” as sufficient for her paper getting an A, but in her premises, “reliable evidence” is necessary. The fact that her paper was supported by reliable evidence isn’t enough to guarantee her an A.
d
is based on ███ ██████ ██ █ ██████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████████
The student is making an argument about her own grade, but this isn’t why her reasoning is flawed. Instead, it’s flawed because she confuses a necessary condition for a paper getting an A with a sufficient condition.
e
fails to make █ █████████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ████████ ███ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ █ ███████ ███████
The argument only addresses one kind of grading criteria— the professor’s criteria that only papers with reliable evidence will get an A. The student never confuses this with “objective criteria.” She just argues that her paper wasn’t graded according to the professor’s criteria.