Council member: I recommend that the abandoned shoe factory be used as a municipal emergency shelter. ████ ███████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ████ ███████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ███████ █████
The council member concludes that the shoe factory would be a better emergency shelter site, compared the courthouse, which other council members proposed. Why? Because no evidence has been provided to show that the courthouse would be a better shelter.
This is a cookie-cutter lack of support vs. false conclusion flaw. Just because there isn’t enough support to confirm a certain conclusion, that doesn’t mean that conclusion must be wrong. The courthouse hasn’t been well-defended by opposing council members as a better shelter than the shoe factory, but that doesn’t mean it might not actually be a better shelter.
A questionable technique used in ███ ███████ ████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██
asserting that a ████ ██ ████████ ███████ █ ████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███████
accepting a claim ██████ ███████ █████████ ██ ██ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████ █████ ████
attacking the proponents ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██████████ █████ ████████
attempting to persuade ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ████
attacking an argument ████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ██████