Self-study
Fremont: Simpson is not a viable candidate for chief executive of Pod Oil because he has no background in the oil industry.
████████ █ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Galindo argues that Simpson’s lack of experience in the oil industry doesn’t disqualify him as a chief executive candidate. He offers two premises:
(1) Having a background in the oil industry doesn’t guarantee success.
(2) The last chief executive was unsuccessful despite their background in the oil industry.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. Fremont argues that having oil industry experience is a necessary condition for being a successful chief executive. Instead of arguing against this claim, Galindo argues that having an oil industry background isn’t a sufficient condition for a chief executive to be successful. Fremont never claimed that an oil background was sufficient, though—he just said it was necessary. Galindo doesn’t address Fremont’s actual argument, so his disagreement with Fremont is unsupported.
16.
Galindo’s argument is flawed in ████ ██
a
fails to justify ███ ███████████ ████ █████████ █████████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ████
Galindo does not presume that Fremont’s objection is based on personal bias, so no such justification would be necessary.
b
fails to distinguish ███████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██████████
It isn’t necessary for Galindo to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant experience, because both Fremont and Galindo limit their arguments to discussions of relevant experience (a background in the oil industry).
c
rests on a █████████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw in Galindo’s argument. Fremont argues that an oil industry background is necessary for success; Galindo counters that such a background is not sufficient to ensure success. Galindo mistakes Fremont’s necessary condition for a sufficient condition.
d
bases a conclusion ████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███████
Galindo does not conclude that an oil industry background is always irrelevant to success. He states that such a background does not necessarily guarantee success, but he doesn’t suggest that oil industry experience is always irrelevant to success.
e
presents only one ████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ █ █████ ██████████████ █████ ████ ██████████
Galindo’s example successfully proves that an oil industry background doesn’t guarantee success, so the efficacy of his example or the fact that he only offers one isn’t a flaw. Rather, the flaw is that the claim his example proves does not actually respond to Fremont’s argument.