Bauer: It is a mistake

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: consequences22% picked this

   misrepresents a criticism about the consequences of a practice as a criticism about the intrinsic

   This one is very tempting. That first verb is perfect. Yes, yes, he's misrepresenting the original complaint - it wasn't about whether having parking regulations enforced had any intrinsic value (whether we should have them at all), it was about whether parking regulations are being enforced in a bad way (overzealously). Although we've all tried, it's pretty icky to stretch the wording of this answer choice so that "overzealous enforcement of parking regulations" is a "consequence of enforcing parking regulations". The fact that the practice of enforcing parking regulations is currently being carried out overzealously isn't a consequence of that practice. And this answer even says "the consequences", plural, so that's also icky. A logical consequence is a must be true implication of an idea. When we write conditionals, such as A ? B, we say that B is a consequence of A. The practice of enforcing parking tickets does not logically guarantee overzealous enforcement. So we can't say overzealousness is a logical consequence. A causal consequence is a result that follows from this action transpiring. A causal consequence of enforcing parking tickets would be things like - the city gets more revenue - the driver of that car gets furious and the rest of their day is crappy Overzealous parking enforcement isn't a consequence of the practice of enforcing parking. It is just one style of conducting that practice.

   22%
2. B

   Bad Premise Match1% picked this

   takes for granted that a certain authority should be respected merely because it

   If a flaw answer takes the form takes for granted that X merely because Y we'll ask ourselves whether X matches the conclusion and Y matches the support (because). Did the author conclude that a certain authority should be respected? Eh. We could make it work. She concluded that it's wrong to criticize meter maids for being overzealous, so that's in the neighborhood of "respect their authority". Does the premise say something like, "after all, all authorities should be respected"? No, not at all. So we definitely can't match up the merely because it is an authority part.

   1%
3. C

   Bad Premise Match2% picked this

   takes for granted that a particular practice is good simply because it is the way things

   If a flaw answer takes the form takes for granted that X simply because Y we'll ask ourselves whether X matches the conclusion and Y matches the support (because). Did the author conclude that "a particular practice is good"? No, she concluded that it's wrong to criticize meter maids for being overzealous. That's not close enough to keep reading. As it turns out, the premise part is miles away. The evidence never mentions "how things have been traditionally done".

   2%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw: not Causal7% picked this

   confuses the cause of a certain phenomenon for an effect of

   This describes one response to the famous Causal flaw. This argument had no causal interpretations happening. The author wasn't trying to explain what was causing overzealous ticketing. She was just defending its existence. Note: this formulation of the Causal flaw answer is always wrong, because the answer is sure of itself. We can never definitively say that the author confused cause for effect. We can only point out the possibility that she failed to consider that possibility.

   7%
5. E

   Correct69% picked this

   defends the current situation merely by suggesting its superiority to an

   Why this is right

   If a flaw answer takes the form does X merely by doing Y we'll ask ourselves whether X matches the conclusion and Y matches the support (by). Was the author's conclusion defending the current situation? Yes. it was saying, "Back off these meter maids, y'all. Stop criticizing them for overzealous ticketing." Was the author's evidence saying that current situation is superior to some alternative scenario? Yes, the author is arguing that things would be worse (inferior) if parking regulations were not enforced at all. Is that alternative scenario implausible? Yes! That's a ridiculous Straw Man position. Who is saying 'Defund the Parking Police'? We're just saying, "please stop being a jerk about giving tickets when we're just a few inches over the red line or when there's like a 2 minute unpaid gap between when the meter runs out and when the spot becomes a free spot." Why would any city go to the trouble of creating parking regulations, posting signs, installing meters, etc., and then do zero enforcement? No one is suggesting that.

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

   69%