I got the score I was hoping for today, and I want to say thank you to 7sage! But I also want to leave some videos for posterity that motivated me during my studies. I came across this story when doing some googling about an absence of evidence flaw question regarding Fermat's last theorem.
Some context:
Andrew Wiles describing proving Fermat's last theorem:
I have a bucket of A, I pour most of it into a bucket B, I pour the entirety of bucket B into bucket C, then I pour all of bucket C into bucket D. Most of my bucket A is in now in bucket D
There is a search bar function that you can use built into law hub
Yea got thrown off by the wrinkle about people finding out what group they were in, and completely over looked that this is just a version of the sea sickness medication problem
For B to be correct it would mean the conclusion is a non sequitur. For instance if the conclusion was about Haynes being unethical just using those premises about the relative amount of products returned that were inspected by Haynes.
Also presuppositions, another word for assumptions, by definition are never explicitly stated. That West inspects an equal amount of product or less is a necessary assumption for the argument to be valid because if its not: West inspects 95% of the products and accounts for half of all returns while the other two inspect 5% and account for the other half then West is clearly a better inspector. C is just describing Young saying the necessary assumption/presupposition is wrong.
Just had to force myself to sit backdown after running around my room and screaming with joy, because I'm so HYPED to learn about the lit dev of THE Kate Chopin
I'll give it a shot:
I think a good framing is cost benefits analysis. They give us this downside of the law that it discourages landowners from protecting species on their land because it means development is prohibited, but from that premise they make the conclusion that the species would not face any additional dangers if the law was removed.
The unreasonable assumption is that because this law has one draw back it does nothing for the protected species. In other words it fails to consider that the law might have other positive effects that outweigh the downside such as possibly preventing the landowners from turning the species habitat into a parking lot. Choice C calls this out, that's how you might get it by hunting.
Now if that does not happen for POE it might look this:
B-This is a cookie cutter prescriptive to descriptive that you have to recognize this is not happening
D-Landowners and developers may have different interests okay? What bearing does this have on the impact of the removal of the law, just an invitation for loose thinking
E-Same sort of thing going on here as with D just assumption bait and super removed from the support structure of the argument, might has well have said it fails to take into account the reaction of space aliens.
A-This is the real hurtle if you don't see the flaw it has the hand wavey feel of a correct flaw answer, but try and pin what its saying down to the stimulus what condition are they mistaking as being required for production with being required for prevention of some outcome. (They are not treating the law and species protection as this type of relationship at all)
C- I don't fully understand why this is correct but I can point to concrete things that wrong with every other choice pick it move on cut my loses