Weingarten claims that keeping animals

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Assumed1% picked this

   takes for granted that Weingarten owns one or

   The author doesn't need Weingarten to own pets (and hasn't implied that Weingarten does). If we negated this and said, "Weingarten doesn't own any pets", that wouldn't hurt the argument. The author can still say that Weingarten is being inconsistent if he opposes zoos but doesn't oppose (other) people owning pets.

   1%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw: not Sampling5% picked this

   inappropriately generalizes from a particular

   This answer describes the famous Sampling flaw, in which an author presents a small sample and then concludes that what was true in the sample will be true for a much broader class of things. Is this conclusion a generalization? Nope. It's a specific rejection of Weingarten's claim. A sampling flaw would have sounded like this: "Look at this zoo in San Francisco that gives animals huge habitats and doesn't exploit them for park visitors. Since this zoo operates ethically, keeping animals in zoos is ethical."

   5%
3. C

   Doesn't Misrepresent4% picked this

   misrepresents the conclusion of the opposing

   The conclusion of the opposing argument is that "keeping animals in zoos is unethical". Our author concludes that "this claim should be rejected". There's no way to call that a misrepresentation. If the opponent's conclusion had been "keeping animals in zoos is unethical" and then our author started making it seem like the conclusion was "all animals in zoos are tortured", that would be misrepresenting the conclusion.

   4%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw: not Necessary vs. Sufficient6% picked this

   takes a necessary condition for a practice's being unethical as a sufficient condition for

   This answer describes the #1 famous flaw Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which an author presents a conditional logic premise and then tries to apply that rule in a backwards or opposite fashion. There was no conditional logic premise, unless we count "If keeping pets, then placing animal in unnatural environment for human amusement" as conditional logic. But even if we did, the rest of the argument would have then needed to sound like, Bob places animals in an unnatural environment for human amusement. Thus, he must keep pets. or sound like Bob doesn't keep pets. Thus, he must not place animals in an unnatural environment for human amusement.

   6%
5. E

   Correct85% picked this

   rejects a claim merely on the grounds that its proponent holds another view

   Why this is right

   Does the author reject a claim? Yes, her conclusion is "his claim should be rejected". Does the author's evidence point out that the proponent of that claim holds another view inconsistent with the claim? Yes, the author is saying that Weingarten thinks zoos are unethical because they place animals in unnatural environments for human amusement, but has the inconsistent thought that keeping pets is ethical ("Weingarten sees nothing wrong with it") even though that also involves placing animals in unnatural environments for human amusement. This is a flaw because just because someone who believes X is true has a reason for believing it that would conflict with another of their beliefs doesn't prove that X is false. X might be true for other reasons. Or X might be true for the reason this person believes, and it's their other belief that's messed up.

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

   85%