PTC.S2.Q12 - Undoubtedly, one's freedom is always worth the risk...

Comments

• maco4538 Alum Member

  July 2023 323 karma

  Always think of what type of evidence the author is using. For any type of evidence, there is some sort of inherent flaw within it. The evidence type used here is an analogy. An argument by analogy is inherently flawed because it assumes that two different scenarios are comparable. So, when you see an argument by analogy ask yourself "but are they really the same thing? "Can we really say that one's freedom is always worth risking one's life based on the analogy of living in an impenetrable box? It is bad practice to argue for a general principle using an extreme case. The flaw will always be about the way the author uses premises to reach their conclusion. Answer choice A takes issue with the conclusion itself - whereas we need an AC that takes issue with the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.
• addison101220 Core Member

  August 2023 56 karma

  @maco4538 said:
  Always think of what type of evidence the author is using. For any type of evidence, there is some sort of inherent flaw within it. The evidence type used here is an analogy. An argument by analogy is inherently flawed because it assumes that two different scenarios are comparable. So, when you see an argument by analogy ask yourself "but are they really the same thing? "Can we really say that one's freedom is always worth risking one's life based on the analogy of living in an impenetrable box? It is bad practice to argue for a general principle using an extreme case. The flaw will always be about the way the author uses premises to reach their conclusion. Answer choice A takes issue with the conclusion itself - whereas we need an AC that takes issue with the relationship between the premises and the conclusion.

  Thank you so much!