Self-study
At the request of Grove Park residents, speed bumps were installed on all streets in their neighborhood. ████████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ████ █████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ █ ███████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ███████
Summarize Argument
The author claims that installing speedbumps in the neighborhood was unfair because all drivers have a right to use those public roads whenever they want.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The problem with this argument is that the support doesn’t really have anything to do with the conclusion. There’s no reason to believe that adding speedbumps to roads will infringe on anyone’s right to use them. In order for this to be a valid conclusion, the argument would need to establish that speed bumps somehow prevent drivers’ access to roads, but that support is not provided.
15.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██
a
ignores the possibility ████ █████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███████ █████ ███████ ███ ████████████
Similar to (B), whether the speed bumps reduce driving speed or not is irrelevant. The claim is that the addition of speedbumps was unfair because drivers have a right to use those roads.
b
neglects the possibility ████ ███████ ██████████ █████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██ ████ ██████
Similar to (A), the speed at which drivers drive is irrelevant because the argument only appeals to people’s right to access roads as grounds for claiming the action was unfair.
c
provides no evidence ████ ███████ ████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ █████ █████ ██ ███ ████████████
This is irrelevant. The argument never claims that anyone complained about the speed bumps, so there’s no need to provide that evidence.
d
contains the tacit ██████████ ████ █████████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ███████ ███████ █████ ███████████
If anything, the author believes the opposite is true for public communities. The argument says that all drivers have a right to use these roads whenever they please, and does not appeal to anyone’s right to restrict such access.
e
presumes, without providing ██████████████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ███ █████
This describes how the evidence given fails to support the conclusion. Drivers may have a right to use these roads, but there’s no reason to believe that adding speedbumps will infringe on that right.