Summarize Argument
The author concludes that aspiring ancient-history scholars no longer need to learn ancient languages, even though ancient languages are necessary to read original ancient documents. This is because most ancient documents have been translated into modern languages, making them readable even by people who don’t know an ancient language.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author draws a general conclusion based only on what is most usually the case. The conclusion that ancient-history scholars don’t need to learn ancient languages is broad and absolute. However, even though “most” ancient documents have been translated, some may still require an ancient language. It’s also possible that reading a document in its original language could be valuable even if a translation is available.
A
It concludes that something is never necessary on the grounds that it is not always necessary.
The author concludes that it is never necessary for ancient-history scholars to know ancient languages, on the grounds that “most” ancient documents have been translated. However, it’s still possible that ancient languages are necessary to read some untranslated documents.
B
A statement of fact is treated as if it were merely a statement of opinion.
The author doesn’t treat any factual statements as though they are just opinions.
C
The conclusion is no more than a restatement of the evidence provided as support of that conclusion.
The author’s conclusion (that ancient-history scholars don’t need to know ancient languages) is different from the supporting evidence (that most ancient documents have been translated).
D
The judgment of experts is applied to a matter in which their expertise is irrelevant.
The author doesn’t bring up the judgment of experts.
E
Some of the evidence presented in support of the conclusion is inconsistent with other evidence provided.
The author doesn’t use inconsistent supporting evidence. The only point of support is that most ancient documents have been translated, which isn’t inconsistent with anything else stated.
Summarize Argument
Zimbabwe objects to a total ban on the ivory trade. Zimbabwe insists that poaching isn’t caused by the ivory trade, which Zimbabwe participates in, but rather by conservation policies other countries employ.
Notable Assumptions
Zimbabwe assumes that though the ban would remedy the poaching problem, it shouldn’t be enacted since Zimbabwe has solved the poaching problem without such a ban. Zimbabwe therefore believes that bans shouldn’t be enacted in situations where they would provide no benefit, or worse yet damage local economies.
A
International measures to correct a problem should not adversely affect countries that are not responsible for the problem.
Since Zimbabwe has eliminated poaching, it shouldn’t be negatively affected by a ban against poaching. This is precisely what Zimbabwe argues.
B
Freedom of trade is not a right but a consequence of agreements among nations.
We don’t care about freedom of trade. We’re interested in why the ban shouldn’t be enacted.
C
Respecting a country’s sovereignty is more important than preventing the extinction of a species.
Zimbabwe isn’t arguing that it should be able to determine its own laws. It’s saying that it shouldn’t be subject to a ban that will harm its economy while creating no difference in the poaching situation.
D
Prohibitions affecting several countries should be enforced by a supranational agency.
We have no idea who should enforce this ban. Zimbabwe thinks no one should.
E
Effective conservation cannot be achieved without eliminating poaching.
Zimbabwe is arguing about how the ban shouldn’t be enacted. We have no idea if Zimbabwe agrees with this.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The columnist concludes that we must defeat a piece of legislation that would improve workers’ rights. Why? Because some supporters of the legislation belong to unsavory groups, or are facing tax-eviction charges.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the argument attacks the source of a position rather than the position itself. In this case, the columnist is casting doubt on the character of the legislation’s supporters, instead of addressing the merits of the legislation.
A
attacks legislation by calling into question the integrity of the originators of the legislation
The columnist isn’t calling into question the character of the “originators” who introduced this legislation, but rather that of its supporters.
B
assails legislation on the basis of the questionable character of supporters of the legislation
The columnist concludes that we should reject legislation just because some of its supporters belong to violent groups or may have evaded taxes—in other words, because of the supporters’ questionable character.
C
attempts to discredit legislation by appealing to public sentiment for those who would be adversely affected
The columnist doesn’t bring up the possibility that anyone would be adversely affected by the legislation.
D
presupposes that legislation is bad legislation whenever it has only a small number of supporters outside the country’s national legislative body
The columnist never proposes a rule of when legislation is bad legislation. The argument also doesn’t ever mention how many or how few supporters the legislation has, whether inside or outside the legislative body.
E
rejects legislation on the grounds that its supporters act inconsistently in seeking to place burdens on manufacturers upon whose business success the supporters depend
The columnist doesn’t accuse the legislation’s supporters of acting inconsistently. The argument also never mentions the issue of burdening manufacturers, or whether the manufacturers’ success is important to anyone.