Self-study
Sigerson argues that the city should adopt ethical guidelines that preclude its politicians from accepting campaign contributions from companies that do business with the city. ██████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ █████████████ ████ ████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ █████████
Summarize Argument
Sigerson proposed an ethical guideline that prevents politicians from accepting campaign contributions from companies that do business with the city. The author concludes that this proposal is dishonest. This is based on the fact that Sigerson has taken contributions from such companies throughout his career in city politics.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The fact that Sigerson accepted contributions in the past doesn’t indicate that he believes his proposal shouldn’t apply to him or that his past acceptance of contributions is ethically acceptable. So there’s no basis to call the proposal “dishonest.” Sigerson may have taken advantage of the lack of a rule against accepting such contributions and now wants to ban those contributions for everyone going forward.
11.
The reasoning in the argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
confuses a sufficient █████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ████ █ █████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ████ ██████████
The argument isn’t based on conditional logic, so there’s no confusion of sufficient and necessary conditions.
b
rejects a proposal ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ██
The author doesn’t reject the proposal; she simply calls it dishonest. Also, the basis of the conclusion isn’t that there’s been an inadequate argument for the proposal. The basis is Sigerson’s past acceptance of contributions.
c
fails to adequately ███████ ███ ███████████ ████ █████ ████ ███████████ █████ ██████ ██████████ ████████
Whether other politicians would resist the proposal is irrelevant, because the argument doesn’t concern the likelihood that the proposal will pass.
d
rejects a proposal ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████
The basis of the author’s conclusion isn’t that Sigerson is unfamiliar with the issues raised in the proposal. The basis is Sigerson’s own acceptance of contributions in the past.
e
overlooks the fact ████ ██████████ ████████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████████
In calling Sigerson’s proposal dishonest, the author seems to think that Sigerson’s past conduct is relevant. But Sigerson isn’t trying to cheat the rules; Sigerson has to follow the new guidelines, too, if the proposal is passed. So there’s no dishonesty in the proposal.