PT17 · S3 · Q20 Morton: In order to succeed in

This is referencing a variation of the famous Causal Flaw. If we can see that the language in this paragraph is all conditional, none of it is causal, then we should move on swiftly. If we were trying to be charitable with this answer, we might say that concluding "a degree is required to be successful" could be construed as a causal claim that "not having a degree causes you to be unsuccessful". Even so, the premise would not be considered a correlation. It would also be considered a causal claim, because the premise and the conclusion are making basically identical claims. The premise would seemingly mean that "not having enough college education causes you to be unsuccessful". If this answer were correct, the argument would have sounded like, "People who have a college degree are much more likely than those who don't to be successful (correlation). Therefore, going to college helps to make you a success. (causal)"

This describes the famous Sampling flaw. The evidence here is the final claim, and it doesn't contain any specific cases/examples. It just cites a rule that "without a degree, you don't have enough education to succeed". The conclusion isn't broader than the evidence. It's the same as the evidence.

Ew, this is tempting. Morton is definitely shady in terms of how he deals with the alleged counterexamples, sweeping them away without presenting any valid evidence for doing so. But it's not true to say he fails to even consider them. Morton explicitly addresses them, calling their success "only apparent." The problem is not that Morton ignored the counterexamples but that the reason Morton gives for dismissing them is circular.

This describes an appeal to popular belief: concluding something is true because most people believe it. Morton makes no reference to popular opinion or belief. The argument relies entirely on Morton's own restated relationship between success and college degrees, not at all on what people think.