Mayor: A huge protest (copy)

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Straw Man5% picked this

   The argument mischaracterizes an opposing view and then attacks this

   This answer refers to a somewhat famous flaw (not top 15) called Straw Man, in which you turn your opponent's position into an unfair version of what was actually said. If someone said, "I think we should raise the minimum wage to $15" and her opponent responded, "Well, I don't think people should get rich for flipping burgers", that would be a straw man position he is arguing against. Here, since the original concern was that "the factory could cause health problems", a straw man would sound something like, "But we can dismiss the concern that everyone who lives near the factory or works there will die of cancer". This argument didn't misrepresent the opponent's position. They just failed to address it all, dismissing their right to have a position based on the fact that someone paid them to be there.

   5%
2. B

   Not Inappropriate Appeal Opposite, if anything2% picked this

   The argument attempts to persuade by inducing fear of the consequences of

   This answer refers to one of the ten famous flaws called Inappropriate Appeal, in which the author's argument leans on our sympathies/fears or leans on the opinion of someone who isn't established to be a qualified expert. The evidence here has nothing to do with playing up fears. This author is trying to tamp down fears by saying that the concerns are only being raised disingenuously by people who object to the construction for other reasons.

   2%
3. C

   Correct87% picked this

   The argument rejects a claim simply because of the motivation that some people have

   Why this is right

   When Flaw answers describe two part reasoning moves, we can try to match up each part with the Evidence or Conclusion. The author [does something in their conclusion] because of [something in their evidence]. Was the conclusion rejecting a claim? Definitely, "This worry can be dismissed". Was the evidence talking about the motivation that some people had for making the claim? Yes, the evidence says that "most of the protesters were there only because they were paid to show up". If an answer is descriptively true, we then ask ourselves, "Okay, this is true about the argument. Is it a criticism of the logic?" Yes! You're not allowed to reject a claim because of the motives of the person who said it. Logically, you evaluate whether the claim is true or false by considering the evidence for or against it, which our author never did.

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   87%
4. D

   Not Sampling4% picked this

   The argument generalizes on the basis of a few

   This answer refers to one of the ten famous flaws called Sampling, in which we worry about the sample that an argument is based on because it's either too small in size (i.e. like just a handful of data points) or because the sample seems biased, dishonest, or self-selecting. This answer choice is specifically referring to a Sampling flaw in which there are a few data points but the paragraph or our common sense has given us some reason to think that these data points aren't likely to be typical of whatever group the author is talking about. This conclusion is not a generalization at all, so we can immediately ditch this answer when we try to match up that half of the answer. The conclusion is a specific claim that "THIS worry can be dismissed".

   4%
5. E

   Not Possible vs. Certain2% picked this

   The argument mistakes a claim that a result is possible for a claim that the

   This answer describes one of the semi-famous flaws (not top 10) known as Possible vs. Certain. When Flaw answer choices say the author "mistakes X for Y" or "confuses X with Y", it will only be correct if the evidence talked about one of those while the conclusion talked about (or acted like we knew) the other one. Is there any claim here about a result being possible? Sure, there's a claim (from the protesters) that the result of the factory's operation could be health problems. Does the author act like we're saying "the factory's operation will inevitability bring health problems"? No. And she's not accusing the protesters of thinking that way either, so there's no aspect of this argument that is trading between possible and certain.

   2%