PT139 · S4 · Q4 Statistical records of crime rates

There's only a conclusion in the first sentence and then three premises (all examples of the conclusion). There's never any counterevidence presented or considered.

Too Strong: assumes true Bad Evidence / Conclusion match If an author derives an implication from a generalization, that means the generalization was Evidence and the implication was a Conclusion. The conclusion is an implication we can derive from the evidence. In that sense, we might look at the conclusion and say, "There's only one implication derived: crime stats probably often reflect the motives/methods of those compiling them". So that's already an awkward fit for deriving plural implcations. More importantly, was there a generalization in the evidence? The only generalization we could really point to would be the final sentence, which says that newspapers often sensationalize crime stats to increase readership. The other premises, saying "the police may do X or Y / politicians may do A or B" aren't really making general statements. They're just describing possible hypotheticals. Does the author assume that final sentence is true? Sure, I mean in the obvious sense that any author assumes their premises are true. This answer seems to be describing an argument where a general claim is made, by others, and the author implicitly accepts it in her reasoning. e.g. Most people think that when a man takes a woman on a first date, the man should pay. Since Robert is taking Sheila on their first date to a movie, Robert should pay for the movie tickets. This would match "deriving an implication from a generalization the author assumes to be true". Meanwhile, this answer is a sloppy fit for this argument, since the author's singular conclusion is supported by considerations about the police, politicians, and newspapers, but this answer is making it seem like from this one generalization about newspapers, the author is deriving multiple implications.

Nothing here is labeled as a problem, but even if we used our common sense and thought of these examples as problematic, there's definitely no solution offered.

There's only a conclusion in the first sentence and then three premises (all examples of the conclusion). There's never any evidence that apparently contradicts the conclusion.