Wrong flaw. This isn’t a terrible argument, but it isn’t valid, either. It commits the cookie-cutter error of overlooking benefits: it tells us about a cost of these high-standard rules (worse behavior), but it fails to rule out possible benefits (maybe the rules allow societies to maintain moral high ground over other societies!) That isn’t the flaw in the stimulus, though—the stimulus rejects a policy just because the policy won’t entirely solve an issue, without considering the fact that the policy’s potential to partially resolve the issue might make it worth implementing.

Wrong flaw. This is an example of overlooking benefits: the argument describes a benefit of dams as well as a cost, and then concludes in favor of the cost without giving sufficient reason to ignore the benefit. That isn’t the flaw in the stimulus, though—the stimulus is flawed in that it rejects a policy just because the policy won’t entirely solve an issue, without considering the fact that the policy’s potential to partially resolve the issue might make it worth implementing.

Wrong flaw. This isn’t a terrible argument, but it isn’t valid, either. It doesn’t rule out the possibility that security guards are better than burglar alarms for reasons other than cost, and it doesn’t tell us that there isn’t some other, third option that’s better than burglar alarms. These aren’t the flaw in the stimulus, though—the stimulus rejects a policy just because the policy won’t entirely solve an issue, without considering the fact that the policy’s potential to partially resolve the issue might make it worth implementing.

This argument starts by stating that taking the drug doesn’t cure the disease, but does reduces the disease’s most harmful effects. It concludes on that basis that doctors shouldn’t prescribe the drug. This is the same flaw as seen in the stimulus: it rejects a solution just because the solution won’t entirely solve an issue, without considering the fact that the solution’s potential to partially resolve the issue might make it worth implementing.

Wrong flaw. This fails to establish that we would need to fully understand the causes of criminal activity in order to improve society’s ability to combat crime, so the conclusion doesn’t logically follow from the premise. That isn’t the flaw in the stimulus, though—the stimulus is flawed in that it rejects a policy just because the policy won’t entirely solve an issue, without considering the fact that the policy’s potential to partially resolve the issue might make it worth implementing.