Self-study
Biologist: A careful study of the behavior of six individual chameleons concluded that lizards such as chameleons bask in the sun not only for warmth but also to regulate their production of vitamin D. ███████ ██ ███ ████████████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ███████████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ██████████████ ███ ███ ████ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that critics of a study involving chameleons are wrong to doubt the study’s conclusion. This is based on the fact that the study’s author is well-regarded professionally and has been doing excellent work for years.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The professional reputation and background of the study’s author doesn’t constitute a reason to trust the study’s conclusion. What matters is how the study was conducted and whether the study’s conclusion is reasonable.
4.
The reasoning in the biologist's ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
takes the behavior ██ ██████████ ██ ██ █████████████ ██ ███████ ██ █ █████
The author’s reasoning isn’t based on generalizing from chamelons to lizards as a whole. The reasoning is based on the study author’s background and whether that shows the results are reliable.
b
fails to explain ███ ██████████ ████████ █████ ███████ █ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███
The author didn’t need to explain how chameleons regulate their vitamin D. This issue doesn’t affect whether the study author’s background constitutes a reason to find the conclusion reliable.
c
focuses its attention ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██████
The author focuses on the study author’s professional reputation and background rather than on the study itself. This is a flaw, because the author’s reputation and background do not reveal anything about the reliability of the study and its conclusion.
d
fails to demonstrate ████ ███ ███████ ███████ ████ ████████ █████████
The argument doesn’t rely on the study’s critics for support, so their expertise is irrelevant.
e
holds the study's ██████ ██ █ ██████ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ███████
The argument doesn’t concern different standards for different people. The author simply believes that the reputation/background of the study’s author constitutes a reason to trust the study’s conclusion.