Self-study
Logician: Support I have studied and thoroughly mastered the laws of logic. ██ ██ █████ ████ █ █████████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ████████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ████ █████████ ███████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ █████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author states that he cannot violate the laws of logic and supports this with two statements: first, that he has studied and mastered the laws of logic, and second, with an analogy between a logician and the laws of logic vs. a physicist and the laws of physics.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author’s analogy isn’t really analogous. Everything in our universe is bound by the laws of physics, and no one can defy gravity or make time move backwards. However, no one is bound to the laws of logic - people make illogical arguments and draw false conclusions all the time, because the laws of logic are easily broken. Saying that a physicist can’t break the laws of physics is true, but because the laws of physics and logic are so different, that example does not really apply to accusing someone of breaking the laws of logic.
5.
The reasoning in the logician's ████████ ██ ████████████ ███████ ████ ████████
a
ignores the fact ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████ █████████ ████████ ██████
Even if physicists are uncovering new laws of physics, it does not change the fact that one can’t break the laws of physics, but can break the laws of logic. The logician’s argument is flawed because of this poor analogy, not because of a changing understanding of physics.
b
presents no evidence ████ ███████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ █████
The relative difficulty of physics and logic has nothing to do with the flaw. Physics and logic are not analogous here because of how we are forced to follow the rules of one and not the other, not because one subject is more difficult to master than the other.
c
fails to rule ███ ███ ███████████ ████ ████ █████████ █████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ████
The existence of some gravity-defying physicist has nothing to do with this argument. Even if someone could defy the laws of physics, that does not make the laws of physics and logic comparable in the way they’d need to be for this author’s analogy to work.
d
treats two kinds ██ ██████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████
The author treats two different areas of study, physics and logic, as though they are the same, even though they differ in whether or not you have to follow their laws. Because we do have to follow the laws of physics but not of logic, this argument is unsupported.
e
has a conclusion ████ ███████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ███████
Our author never contradicts himself. No parts of the argument conflict with each other; instead, the flaw comes from the poor analogy used by the author to make his point.