Politician: Most of those at the meeting were not persuaded by Kuyler's argument, Conclusion nor should they have been, for Support Kuyler's argument implied that it would be improper to enter into a contract with the government; and yet—as many people know— Support Kuyler's company has had numerous lucrative contracts with the government.
The politician concludes that those at the meeting shouldn’t have been persuaded by Kuyler’s argument. As support, the politician says that Kuyler’s argument implied that it wouldn’t be proper to enter a contract with the government, but Kuyler’s company has entered many government contracts.
This is a source attack. The politician doesn’t say anything about the merits of Kuyler’s argument, or give any support fot the claim that those at the meeting shouldn’t believe the argument. The politician just says that Kuyler’s company’s past actions are inconsistent with the implications of Kuyler’s argument
Which one of the following █████████ █ ████ ██ ███ ████████████ █████████
It concludes that ██ ████████ ██ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████████
This is descriptively inaccurate. The argument says that “most” weren’t persuaded, not that nobody was. Also, Kuyler’s inability to persuade isn’t the only support for the politician’s claim. The politician’s argument rests on inconsistencies between Kuyler’s actions and his argument.
It relies on █████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ███████
This is descriptively inaccurate. The argument does not reference any testimony, nor is there any indication that any source is likely to be biased.
It rejects an ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ █ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████
This is the flaw. The politician doesn’t say anything about the persuasiveness of Kuyler’s argument. Instead, the politician focuses on the fact that Kuyler’s company has acted in a way that is inconsistent with what the politician claims that Kuyler’s argument implied.
It rejects a ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ███
This is descriptively inaccurate. The politician isn’t saying that Kuyler didn’t make enough of an argument; the politician is just saying that Kuyler’s company’s actions don’t line up with the implications of Kuyler’s argument.
It rejects an ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████
This is descriptively inaccurate. The politician’s argument is based on Kuyler’s actions; the politician doesn’t cite popular opinion as a reason that people shouldn’t believe Kuyler.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic