Numerous books describe the rules of etiquette. βββββββ βββ βββββββ ββ ββββ βββββ ββββββ ββββββ βββββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ βββββββ βββββββββ ββ ββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββββ ββ β βββββββ βββββββββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ ββββββββ βββββββββ ββ ββββββββββ ββββ ββββ βββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββ ββ ββ ββββββ ββ βββββ βββ βββ βββ ββ βββββββββ ββ βββββββ βββ ββββββ ββ ββββββββββ
The speaker concludes that it is absurd to label one set of behaviors as correct and another as incorrect, as is done in etiquette books. Her reasoning is that different cultures have different standards, so no one standard can be objectively correct.
The speakerβs reasoning is flawed because the etiquette books donβt have to be referring to one universal standardβa French book could be intended only to apply to France. It could then make sense for a book to describe certain behaviors as correct, if itβs only referring to one culture.
Analysis by TheodoreMalter
The reasoning in the argument ββ ββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββ ββββ βββ ββββββββ
reaches a conclusion βββββ βββ ββββββ ββββββββ ββββββ ββ βββ βββββ ββ ββββββββββ βββββββββ βββ ββββ βββββ ββ ββββββ
bases a generalization βββββ βββ βββββ ββ βββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββ ββ β βββ βββββββ
fails to justify βββ βββββββββββ βββββββββ βββ βββββββββ ββ βββββ ββ βββββββββ ββ ββββββββββ ββββββββ
overlooks the possibility ββββ βββββββ ββ βββββββββ βββββ βββ ββββββββββ ββ βββββ ββββ ββ βββββββ ββββββββ βββ βββ ββββββββββ βββββββ ββββ
attempts to lend ββββββ ββββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββββββ βββ ββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββ ββ βββββββββ βββββ ββββββββ