Self-study
Columnist: If you received an unsigned letter, you would likely have some doubts about the truth of its contents. ███ ████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██████████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ████████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ████████ ███████ █████ █████████ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ █████
Summarize Argument
The columnist concludes that it is reasonable to doubt statements from anonymous sources in news stories. To support this position, the columnist draws an analogy to doubting the truth of an unsigned letter, reasoning that in either case, anonymity gives a writer more freedom to speak dishonestly without worrying about personal consequences.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The columnist concludes that a response is reasonable in one case by offering an analogous case where that response is considered reasonable, and showing that the response can be justified by the same reasoning in both cases.
12.
The columnist's argument proceeds by
a
pointing out that █ ███████ ████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ████ █ ███████ ████████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ██ █████████ █████████
The attitude of doubt adopted in the situation of receiving an unsigned letter is used to justify an attitude of skepticism toward reading statements from anonymous sources in newspapers—two situations presented as analogous.
b
drawing an analogy ███████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ █ █████████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ███ ████████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████
The columnist doesn’t argue about different attitudes being adopted in two different situations. Rather, the columnist argues that the same attitude should be adopted in analogous situations.
c
inferring that an ████████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █ █████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ █████████ ██ █ ████████████ █████████ ██ ████ ████
The columnist doesn’t make any generalizations about a “type” of situation, only justifying one situation—doubting anonymous sources in newspapers—using another, analogous situation of doubting the contents of unsigned letters.
d
calling into question █ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███████ █████
The columnist isn’t showing that any evidence is false, instead only arguing that it is reasonable to doubt statements from certain sources by comparing them to analogous sources that are usually doubted—not shown to be false.
e
calling into question ███ ███████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███████ ████████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ █████
The columnist doesn’t conclude that any information is likely to be false, only concluding that skepticism about some information is justified.