Self-study
Politician: Some of my opponents have argued on theoretical grounds in favor of reducing social spending. ███████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███████████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██ █████████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███████ █████████ ███ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████████ ███ █████████████████ ████████████ ██ ██ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Opponents of the politician argue that we should reduce social spending. Their argument is based on “theoretical grounds.”
The politician concludes that we should not reduce social spending. The politician supports this conclusion by noting that the opponents should focus on the main cause of deficit spending.
Identify and Describe Flaw
Rather than responding to the “theoretical grounds” that the opponents use to support their conclusion, the politician merely says that the opponents should focus on something else. This doesn’t persuasively engage with the politician’s argument. Furthermore, the politician fails to provide any reason not to reduce social expenditure.
17.
A reasoning flaw in the ████████████ ████████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
a
does not address ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████ █████████
The opponents argue “on theoretical grounds” in favor of reducing social spending. The politician fails to show why those theoretical grounds are unpersuasive, or why the opponents’ argument is flawed. This makes the politician’s argument unconvincing.
b
makes an attack ██ ███ █████████ ██ █████████
The politician doesn’t attack the opponents’ character. He criticizes the focus of their argument, but the focus of an argument is not part of one’s character.
c
takes for granted ████ ███████ ████████ ███ ████ ███ █████
The politician describes the “main cause” of deficit spending. This doesn’t suggest the author believes deficit spending has only one cause. There can be other causes; the politicians identifies what he views to be the main one.
d
portrays opponents' views ██ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ███
We don’t have any indication that the politician’s description of the opponents’ argument makes the opponents’ position more extreme. All we know is that the opponents’ argument is based on “theoretical grounds.” We don’t know whether this exaggerates the opponents’ position.
e
fails to make █████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████████
The specific level of spending that constitutes “excessive” is not relevant. The opponents argue that there is too much social spending, and the politician responds that we should not reduce social spending. Nothing requires the politician to specify a particular dollar amount.