PT152 · S2 · Q1 Student: My university recently

If we say that an author fails to establish X, does not state X, neglects to specify X then we're complaining that the author "should have said X. He was implicitly assuming X, but he needs to say it out loud for his argument to work". For example: "Paul applied to Notre Dame. Thus, Paul must want to go to a great dental school." Correct answer: (A) fails to specify that Notre Dame is a great dental school Incorrect answer: (A) fails to specify that Notre Dame's school ranking among dental schools This latter answer is too specific / too quantitative. That's never the correct answer on Flaw. We're never complaining that we lack a specific number / measurement / definition. Here, being told the specific penalties the school has in mind wouldn't actually have any logical force, because ultimately what we care about is whether the penalties this time around are different from the previous failed attempts. This could be a correct answer fails to consider that the new penalties enacted are much harsher than those of previous attempts to curb drinking. We care whether and how the penalties are different from before, not what they specifically are.

Whenever Flaw answers start with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility we can ask ourselves whether the argument would be hurt by this new idea. Does it hurt this author's argument that "since previous anti-drinking campaigns failed, this new one is also going to fail" if we say, But, Author, did you know that many students on campus don't even drink? Nope, that's not an objection. We all know some drink, some don't. The issue is whether these campaigns can get some of the current drinkers to stop drinking on campus. Since the author was never assuming that everybody on campus drank in the dorms, it can't weaken her argument to say, "You know a bunch of people don't drink in the dorms".

Whenever Flaw answers start with presumes / takes for granted we can ask ourselves whether the argument needed to assume this idea. Does this author need to assume that drinking in the dorm is students' favorite choice? Does it hurt this author's argument if we say, "drinking in the dorm is not their preferred location"? No, that doesn't hurt anything. I drank in the dorms my fair share, even though it wasn't my preferred location. My preferred location would have been at a bar (which I was too young to get into and too broke to afford) or at a sporting event / concert (which I was too broke to afford) or in a desolate field looking at the stars (which wasn't available near where I went to college). So even though drinking in the dorms was my 4th choice, I still did plenty of it. Even if the students at this university would prefer to drink somewhere else, many of them still do drink in the dorms and hence the university is trying yet another scheme to try to shut that down.

Whenever Flaw answers start with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility we can ask ourselves whether the argument would be hurt by this new idea. Does it hurt this author's argument that "since previous anti-drinking penalties failed, these new penalties are also going to fail to curb on-campus drinking" if we say, But, Author, these penalties will have other positive consequences, even though they won't curb drinking in the dorms. No, that doesn't hurt the author. If she were arguing, "We shouldn't impose these new penalties", then we would be able to do this whole pros and cons discussion that even if this plan doesn't help the drinking problem it has other advantages that make it worthwhile. But this isn't should. This conclusion is speaking narrowly about whether the plan will or will not have one specific effect: curbing on-campus drinking. Any other effects it has are irrelevant to whether the author's conclusion is right or wrong.