Self-study
Dobson: Some historians claim that the people who built a ring of stones thousands of years ago in Britain were knowledgeable about celestial events. ███ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ █ ████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ██ █ ███████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ████ ███ █████████████ █████ █████████ ███████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Dobson concludes that the people who built the ring of stones in Britain were not knowledgeable about celestial events. He supports this by saying that, because there are many stones in the ring, there’s a good chance that one pair of stones would point in a celestially significant direction.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a rejection of someone’s argument with a rejection of their conclusion. Dobson concludes that the historians’ conclusion is false, simply because their evidence doesn’t establish their conclusion. But just because someone’s evidence is insufficient doesn’t mean you can assume that the opposite of their conclusion is true.
18.
Which one of the following ██ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ █████████
a
The failure of █████ ████████ ██ █████████ █ █████████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████
Dobson concludes that the people who built the stone ring didn’t understand celestial events, just because the historians’ evidence fails to establish their conclusion. But a lack of evidence doesn’t mean you can automatically assume the opposite of someone’s conclusion.
b
Dobson's conclusion logically ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of internal contradiction. Dobson doesn’t make this mistake. His argument is flawed, but it isn’t contradictory.
c
Statements that absolutely █████████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████
Actually, Dobson treats his evidence as if it absolutely establishes his conclusion, even though it doesn’t establish it at all.
d
Something that is ██████ █ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ █████
The builders of the ring were either knowledgeable about celestial events or they were not; this isn’t a matter of opinion. It may be Dobson’s opinion that there’s a high chance that a pair of stones would point to something significant, but this isn’t the flaw in his argument.
e
Dobson's drawing the ██████████ ██████ ██ ████████████ █ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation. Dobson never makes this mistake in his argument.