The mayor, an outspoken critic of the proposed restoration of city hall, is right when he notes that the building is outdated, but that the restoration would be expensive at a time when the budget is already tight. We cannot afford such a luxury item in this time of financial restraint, he says. However, I respectfully disagree. The building provides the last remaining link to the days of the city’s founding, and preserving a sense of municipal history is crucial to maintaining respect for our city government and its authority. So to the question, “Can we really afford to?” I can only respond, “Can we afford not to?”
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The citizen concludes that the mayor is incorrect that the city can’t afford to restore city hall, which would strain the city’s limited budget. In support, the citizen explains that the building is the last link to the time of the city’s founding, and that preserving history helps to maintain respect for the city government. This supports the sub-conclusion that the city can’t afford not to restore city hall.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is an “equivocation” flaw, where the same word is used in two different ways. The citizen rejects the mayor’s point about financial “affordability.” This is supported with an appeal to cultural or historic “affordability.”
A
The argument is solely an emotional appeal to history.
The citizen’s appeal to history isn’t solely emotional, because it also includes the claim that history helps to maintain the city’s authority, which is a more pragmatic consideration.
B
The argument ambiguously uses the word “afford.”
The mayor’s claim that the city can’t “afford” the restoration refers to financial affordability. The citizen’s question of whether the city can “afford” not to restore the building refers instead to cultural or historic considerations, sidestepping the mayor’s point.
C
The argument inappropriately appeals to the authority of the mayor.
The citizen doesn’t appeal to the mayor’s authority—especially because the argument is aimed at discrediting the mayor’s position!
D
The argument incorrectly presumes that the restoration would be expensive.
The citizen accepts the mayor’s point that the restoration would be expensive, but there’s no reason to think that claim is incorrect.
E
The argument inappropriately relies on the emotional connotations of words such as “outdated” and “luxury.”
The citizen’s argument doesn’t rely on words such as “outdated” and “luxury” at all. Those words are part of the mayor’s argument, with which the citizen disagrees.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author looks at a trend of job losses and concludes that, contrary to what some people say, those who have managed to keep their jobs are spending just as much money as they ever have, rather than reining in spending. As evidence, the author points out that these employed people haven’t been increasing the size of their savings accounts.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author counters a position held by others. She does this by first predicting a cause-and-effect relationship that we’d expect to see if that other position were true: if employed people really were reducing their spending, their savings accounts would likely grow as a result. The author then shows that the effect (more savings) hasn’t occurred, which undermines the likelihood that the cause (reduced spending) has occurred either.
A
concluding that since an expected consequence of a supposed development did not occur, that development itself did not take place
The supposed development is a reduction in spending by people who are still employed, and the expected consequence is unusual growth in those people’s saving accounts. The author concludes that since there’s been no unusual growth, there’s been no reduction in spending.
B
concluding that since only one of the two predictable consequences of a certain kind of behavior is observed to occur, this observed occurrence cannot, in the current situation, be a consequence of such behavior
The author only identifies one predictable consequence of reducing spending—namely, a growth in savings accounts. Also, the conclusion isn’t about whether something is the consequence of a certain behavior—rather, the conclusion is that the behavior itself isn’t occurring.
C
arguing that since people’s economic behavior is guided by economic self-interest, only misinformation or error will cause people to engage in economic behavior that harms them economically
The author never raises the subjects of economic self-interest, misinformation, error, or economically harmful behavior.
D
arguing that since two alternative developments exhaust all the plausible possibilities, one of those developments occurred and the other did not
This ignores reasoning by cause-and-effect, which is central to the author’s argument. Instead, (D) describes the following, very different argument: since employed people either did or did not reduce spending, it must be that they did not reduce spending.
E
concluding that since the evidence concerning a supposed change is ambiguous, it is most likely that no change is actually taking place
The only evidence presented is clear, not ambiguous. The author states, without any ambiguity, that there’s been no unusual increase in the size of employed people’s savings accounts.