PT115 · S2 · Q2 Any course that teaches students

It is true that the author never specifies how a course can teach students how to write, but it was just an implicit concept in the evidence that some courses can teach students how to write. This doesn't represent an objection to the author's reasoning / logic / argument. A reasoning objection is saying, "Even though I accept that .... any course that teaches you how to write serves you well, and that ... some philosophy courses teach you how to write, that does not prove that you will be served well by ANY philosophy class, because [reasoning objection]."

There is never anything flawed about drawing a weaker conclusion than is warranted. If you can validly conclude that "Pam has $100", but you draw a weaker conclusion, like, "Pam has more than $5", your conclusion is still true. The fact that you aren't revealing "the whole truth" doesn't change the fact that you have derived a valid, true conclusion. This argument did the opposite of what this answer is saying; it drew a conclusion that was stronger than what was warranted. The evidence warranted drawing the conclusion that "students would be served well in later life by some philosophy courses", and the conclusion said that "students would be served well in later life by any philosophy course".

This describes one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Part vs. Whole, in which the author establishes that a trait applies to a part/whole and then concludes that the same trait must apply to the whole/part. We need to keep track of whether an answer is saying the argument went from Part to Whole or from Whole to Part. This answer says, "the author presumes that what is true of X must also be true of Y". That indicates that X is the given and that applying that idea to Y is the overstretched conclusion. Did the evidence establish that something is true of a whole? No, the two premises are: - any individual course that teaches you how to write will serve you well - some individual philosophy courses teach you how to write Both premises are about individual courses. We might be tempted by this thinking, "Yo, author --- you're assuming that because teaches you to write is true of some individual Philosophy classes that it's true of all Philosophy classes". And that might feel like a Part vs. Whole distinction. But there are two problems 1. Since the conclusion is about all/any philosophy classes, and the evidence is about some individual philosophy classes, this argument would be making a move from Part to Whole. This answer choice accuses it of moving from Whole to Part. 2. It's not actually Part vs. Whole when you're saying, "Because X was true of these A's, X will be true of all A's." i.e., because this cheerleader was spunky, all cheerleaders are spunky. That's not a Part to Whole flaw. That's Sampling. When author assume "these data points must be similar to other data points (even the set of all data points)" that's sampling. If it's true of this cheerleader, it's true of every single cheerleader. Part vs. Whole has to involve a switch to a collective concept. "All cheerleaders" isn't a collective concept. It's a universal statement about individuals. Part vs. Whole would sound like, i.e. because Pam is part of the cheerleading squad and Pam can't afford to charter a bus, we can conclude that the cheerleading squad as a whole can't afford to charter a bus. (our objection would be like, "if everyone's money is pooled together, maybe then they could afford the bus?") Sampling would be saying, because Pam is a cheerleader and can't afford to charter a bus, all cheerleaders on the squad can't afford to charter a bus. (our objection would be like, "maybe Pam is atypically lower-income for a cheerleader, or maybe there is some atypically rich cheerleader on the squad who could afford the bus". )

Since this answer begins with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we treat it like a Weaken idea and ask whether it would hurt the argument. Could we object to this argument by saying, "Hey, author -- some students are forced to take a philosophy course"? No, that wouldn't hurt the argument at all. The author would be like, "Great. I'm glad they're forced to take one, since it will surely serve them well later in life."