Numerous books describe the rules of etiquette. ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ █████ ██████ ██████ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ████ ████████ ████ █████ ██ █ ███████ █████████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████
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 speaker’s reasoning is flawed because the etiquette books don’t have to be referring to one universal standard—a 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 it’s only referring to one culture.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
reaches a conclusion █████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██████
bases a generalization █████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █ ███ ███████
fails to justify ███ ███████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████████ ████████
overlooks the possibility ████ ███████ ██ █████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███████ ████
attempts to lend ██████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ █████ ████████