Self-study
Support People in the tourist industry know that excessive development of seaside areas by the industry damages the environment. ████ ███████████ ████ █████ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ██████ █████ █████ ████████████ ██ █████████ █ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ █████ █████ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ████ █████ █████ █████████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████████████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ █████████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███████ █████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people need not fear that the tourism industry will harm the seaside environment. This is backed up by a long chain of support. First, people in the tourism industry are aware that overdevelopment of the seaside harms the environment. They also know that overdevelopment deters tourists, which harms their industry. Finally, we’re told that people in the tourism industry wouldn’t knowingly harm their own industry.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author draws a broad conclusion that the tourism industry isn’t a risk to the seaside environment, but the offered support only addresses knowing harm through overdevelopment. The author doesn’t give us any reason to believe that the tourism industry wouldn’t unknowingly harm the environment, or that they wouldn’t harm the environment in a way other than overdevelopment.
12.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████
a
No support is ████████ ███ ███ █████ ████ █████████ ███████████ █████ ███ ███████ █████████
The author in fact does support this claim by explaining a mechanism: overdevelopment makes areas less attractive to tourists.
b
That something is ███ ███ █████ ██ █ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ████████
The author just doesn’t make any claims about whether something coexists with a problem. Specifically, the author doesn’t claim that the tourism industry never coexists with environmental damage.
c
The argument shifts ████ ████████ █ ██████████████ ██ █ ███ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████
The entire argument is phrased in general terms, talking about the entire tourism industry and all seaside areas. So, the author never focuses on just a few members of a group.
d
The possibility that ███ ███████ ████████ █████ ███████████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████████
The author’s support only focuses on the possibility that the tourism industry would knowingly harm the environment to draw a general conclusion that they wouldn’t harm the environment at all. The author just doesn’t address the possibility of unintentional harm.
e
The argument establishes ████ █ ███████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████████
The argument never makes a jump from a state of affairs being likely to that state of affairs being inevitable. The entire argument is phrased in general and absolute terms, “likely” doesn’t come into it.