Self-study
Several excellent candidates have been proposed for the presidency of United Wire, and each candidate would bring to the job different talents and experience. ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ██ ███████████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ██ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ █████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that Jones is the best qualified, because none of the other candidates has the same set of qualifications as Jones.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The conclusion is that Jones is the best qualified, but the support is merely that she has different qualifications from the other candidates. What makes her unique set of qualifications better than anyone else’s qualifications? The author doesn’t say, so his argument fails to provide evidence that supports the comparison made in the conclusion.
Moreover, the author notes that everyone has a unique set of qualifications. So the reason for choosing Jones—unique qualifications—equally applies to every other candidate. The argument singles out one member of a set based on a trait held by all members of that set.
6.
The argument is vulnerable to █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██
a
uses flattery to ███ ████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ████████
No opposing position is identified. And although the author notes that Jones is the “best qualified,” nothing suggests that this is flattery—rather, this is simply the author’s conclusion about who the best candidate is.
b
refutes a distorted ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ████████
No opposing position is identified or refuted.
c
seeks to distinguish ███ ██████ ██ █ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███
The author tries to distinguish Jones as the best candidate on the basis of something—unique qualifications—that applies to all candidates. This is a flaw; if all candidates, like Jones, have unique qualifications, then we’re given no reason to choose Jones over anyone else.
d
supports a universal █████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █ ██████ ███████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of overgeneralization. But the author doesn’t make a generalized or universal claim. His conclusion is a claim specifically about one candidate, and he supports that claim on the basis of a consideration of all candidates.
e
describes an individual ██ █████ ████ █████████████ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █ █████
This is the cookie-cutter “whole to part” flaw, where a trait belonging to a group is inappropriately applied to a single member. The author doesn’t do this—he describes each candidate in terms of her qualifications, which is a trait that rightly applies to individuals.