Self-study
Columnist: Conclusion Making some types of products from recycled materials is probably as damaging to the environment as it would be to make those products from entirely nonrecycled materials. ███ █████████ ███████ ███ █████ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████████████
Summarize Argument
The columnist concludes that making certain products from recycled materials is probably as environmentally harmful as making them from new materials. As support, she says that the recycling process for those products uses as much energy as creating them new, and energy production usually harms the environment.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The columnist concludes that making the products from recycled materials is as harmful as making them from new materials because of one environmental cost that the two share: energy production. However, she fails to consider any other environmental benefits of using recycled materials which might outweigh this cost. It’s possible that using recycled materials is still less harmful overall, even though it uses the same amount of energy.
2.
The reasoning in the columnist's ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
uses the word █████████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █ ███████ ███ ██ █ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ ████ ███████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the author uses the same term in different ways throughout the argument. The columnist doesn’t make this mistake; she uses the same meaning of “environment” in her premise and in her conclusion.
b
treats an effect ██ ██████████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ███████ █ █████ ██ ████ ██████
The columnist doesn’t address any effects of environmental damage, nor does she treat one of these effects as if it were a cause of environmental damage. She just says that using recycled materials for certain products is as environmentally damaging as using new materials.
c
fails to consider ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ██ ██████████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ███████
The columnist doesn’t make any claims about recycled products in general. She says that “making some types of products from recycled materials” is just as damaging because “the recycling process for those products” uses just as much energy.
d
fails to consider ████ ██████ ████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████████████ ████████ █████████ ██ ██████ ███████████
The columnist bases her conclusion on one cost of using recycled materials— energy production— without considering any of the benefits. If using recycled materials does have other environmental benefits, then it might actually be less environmentally harmful overall.
e
presumes that simply ███████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ████ ██ █ █████ ██ ███ █████ ███
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that correlation proves causation. The columnist doesn’t make this mistake. Instead, she assumes that using recycled materials causes just as much environmental damage as new materials, simply because they use the same amount of energy.