Self-study
Although Jaaks is a respected historian, Conclusion her negative review of Yancey's new book on the history of coastal fisheries in the region rests on a mistake. ███████ ██████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████████████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ████████ ████████ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ███████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that Jaaks’ negative review of Yancey’s new book is mistaken. He supports this by saying that Jaaks claims the book misrepresents fishery workers, but Yancey used the same research methods in this book as in her other books. He also notes that Yancey’s new book and her previous books are all very popular.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author makes two key assumptions in his argument.
(1) He assumes that since Yancey used the same research methods in this book as in her previous books, she must not be misrepresenting fishery workers. He ignores the possibility that Yancey might just use bad research methods in all her books.
(2) He also assumes that because Yancey’s books are popular, they’re also factually accurate. However, a book’s popularity is not necessarily a reflection of its accuracy.
6.
The reasoning above is flawed ██ ████ ██
a
relies on the ████ ██ █ ███████ ███ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████
The author’s argument doesn't rely on the word of a scholar at all. He’s arguing against Jaaks, who is a scholar, but he doesn’t rely on any other scholar to support his argument.
b
attacks the person ██████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████
This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where an author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. The author doesn't make this mistake. He attacks Jaaks’ argument, not Jaaks herself.
c
takes for granted ████ ███ ██████████ ██ █ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████████
The author assumes that because Yancey’s books are all popular, her books and research methods must be accurate. But a book’s popularity does not necessarily reflect its factual accuracy.
d
bases a general ██████████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ████████████████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The author doesn't make this mistake. He draws a specific conclusion about Jaak’s review.
e
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ████ █████ ███████ ████████ ███████
The author assumes that Yancey’s methods produce accurate results, but he never assumes that hers are the only methods that would produce accurate results.