PT122 · S4 · Q23 Counselor: Constantly comparing oneself to

When we see Flaw answers begin with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility we can ask ourselves, "(assuming they really failed to consider this), would it weaken?" The author only discusses situations where we constantly compare up or compare down, but not-mentioning cases where people intermittently compare up and compare down doesn't pose an obvious objection. Are we saying that these people who sometimes compare up and sometimes compare down, wouldn't end up self-accepting and accepting of others if they stopped both kinds of comparing? Why wouldn't they? Just because they weren't in either of the categories captured by the two "constantly comparing" triggers? This isn't hopeless, because the author's conclusion is about all people who do any comparing of themselves to others, and the evidence only discussed two subsets of that population. But since we don't have a good way of saying why this overlooked subset (people that compare both up and down) would be different from the two we talked about, this doesn't make for a great objection.

When we see Flaw answers begin with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility we can ask ourselves, "(assuming they really failed to consider this), would it weaken?" This answer would not weaken, since the conclusion is only about whether specific conditions would result (being self-accepting and accepting of others). The only way an objection like this answer choice becomes relevant is if the Conclusion sounds more like, "So, people should not compare themselves to others". This kind of conclusion assumes that the downsides of comparing ourselves to others outweigh the upsides, so bringing up the possibility of potential upsides would weaken that sort of conclusion. But other possible effects of comparing / not-comparing are out of scope, given the conclusion we actually have.

When we see Flaw answers begin with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish we can ask ourselves, "did the author assume this? if so, does that represent a problem with the logic?" The author was definitely associating "dismissive of others" with "not accepting of others", and associating "being self-disparaging" with "not being self-accepting". However, those don't feel like dubious assumptions. Being dismissive of others does mean you're not accepting of others. Obviously people change from day to day, so someone might be dismissive to others on a grumpy Monday and accepting of others on a lazy Saturday, but if we're describing someone globally as "dismissive of others" then we can't also describe them globally as "accepting of others". So we might distance ourselves from this answer since the term shifts feel pretty close to dictionary synonym / antonym relationships. But this is also inverting the logic move the author made. The author is concluding what would happen if we stopped comparing ourselves. He is thinking, "If we stop comparing ourselves, then we won't get the self-disparagement then comes from comparing up and we won't get the dismissiveness we get from comparing down." And so the author moves from "If we are not being self-disparaging and dismissive, then we will be self-accepting and accepting of others" This answer flips the illegal light switch on this move, and gives us "If we are being self-disparaging / dismissive, then we are not being self-accepting and accepting of others."

Even though the author only discusses situations in which people constantly compare up or compare down, she hasn't said anything that commits her to the idea that every time we compare ourselves to others, it's always to someone perceived as better or worse.