Self-study
Most lawyers hold that violations of the rights of those who possess sites on the web are best prevented using copyright law. ███ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ █████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ████████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ████████████ ██ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ███████ █████████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that the common law of trespass should be extended to apply to property violations in cyberspace. As support, the author cites the fact that many words that describe the internet are also associated with real estate, and the common law of trespass usually applies to real estate property encroachments.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument operates by using an analogy between two things that are not similar enough. The only similarity between real estate and the internet that the author provides is the fact that some words are used in both contexts (like “site” and “visiting.”) This similarity is not enough to justify that laws that are designed for real estate should be applied to the internet.
9.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
fails to provide ████████ ████████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██ ████ ██████
The argument doesn’t need this evidence. The argument isn’t based on the claim that property in cyberspace is considered to be real estate; rather, the author makes an analogy. The author claims that cyberspace and real estate have similarities, not that cyberspace is considered to be real estate.
b
has a premise ████ ███████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████████
This is descriptively inaccurate. (B) refers to circular reasoning, in which the conclusion simply restates the premises. While the support in the argument is flawed, the argument does provide premises that support a conclusion, so it does not operate on circular reasoning.
c
itself provides significant ████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ █████
This is descriptively inaccurate. While the premises do not adequately support the conclusion, the premises do not argue against the conclusion.
d
fails to provide ████████ ████ ███ ████████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████
This describes the flaw; the argument attempts to make an argument by analogy, but the similarities between real estate and cyberspace that the author provides are not sufficient to conclude that real estate laws should apply to cyberspace.
e
defends a view ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ███████
This is descriptively inaccurate. The opinion of experts (the lawyers) is only cited as context, and the author’s conclusion goes against the opinion of the lawyers. The author does not cite the lawyer’s view as the sole support (or, as any support) for his argument.