Self-study
Bauer: Conclusion It is a mistake to criticize the city for being overzealous in its issuance of parking tickets. ███ ███ ███████ ███ ████ █████ ███████ █████ ██ ██ ███████ ███████████ ████ ███ █████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the city isn’t being overzealous in its issuance of parking tickets. This is based on the assertion (in the form of a rhetorical question) that parking would be worse if parking regulations were not being enforced.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the city could still enforce parking regulations, but just not as zealously as it currently is. The author cites to what would happen if parking regulations were not enforced. But this doesn’t tell us what would happen if the city just reduced how much it enforced the regulations, while still enforcing them.
12.
The reasoning in Bauer’s argument ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
a
misrepresents a criticism █████ ███ ████████████ ██ █ ████████ ██ █ █████████ █████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ████████
The author doesn’t comment on the intrinsic value of enforcing parking regulations. We also have no evidence that the author misrepresents the criticism that the city is overzealous in issuance of tickets.
b
takes for granted ████ █ ███████ █████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ ██ █████████
The author doesn’t rely on an an appeal to authority to support the conclusion. Rather, the author relies on a comment on the consequences of lack of parking regulation enforcement.
c
takes for granted ████ █ ██████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ████ █████████████ ████ ████
The author doesn’t argue that enforcing parking regulations is good merely because we have traditionally enforced such regulations. Rather, the author points to the results of lack of enforcement.
d
confuses the cause ██ █ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████
The author does not confuse cause and effect. The author does not conclude or assume that one thing causes another. Rather, the premise establishes that lack of enforcement leads to certain consequences.
e
defends the current █████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██ ███████████ ███████████
The author, through a rhetorical question, suggests that the current level of enforcement is better than a complete lack of enforcement. But lack of enforcement isn’t a plausible alternative — the question is whether the city could enforce less zealously than it currently does.