Insurance that was to become effective at 9 A.M. on a certain date was taken out on the life of a flight attendant. ██ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██ ████ █████ █████ █████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ █ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ███████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ██████ ██████████ █ ██████████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████████ ████████████ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ████
The representative concludes that the insurance company should pay out a flight attendant’s life insurance policy, even though there is a question of whether the policy had become effective when he died. In support, the representative says that the flight attendant had been the only support for his beneficiary, his mother, and that she is also ill.
The representative is trying to counter the insurance company’s argument about the timing of the policy by appealing to emotional concerns about the beneficiary. This just doesn’t address the concern raised by the insurance company.
The representative's argument is flawed ██ █ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██████████ ███████
the conclusion is ██ ████ ████ █ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ██
it appeals to ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██████
it makes an ███████████ ███████████ ███████ ██████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ███████████
it substitutes an ██████ ██ █ ██████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███████
a cause and ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ █████