Question

Mayor Smith, one of our few government officials with a record of outspoken, informed, and consistent opposition to nuclear power plant construction projects, has now declared herself in favor of building the nuclear power plant at Littletown. If someone with her past antinuclear record now favors building this power plant, then there is good reason to believe that it will be safe and therefore should be built. The argument is vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds? (A) It overlooks the possibility that not all those who fail to speak out on issues of nuclear power are necessarily opposed to it. (B) It assumes without warrant that the qualities enabling a person to be elected to public office confer on that person a grasp of the scientific principles on which technical decisions are based. (C) It fails to establish that a consistent and outspoken opposition is necessarily an informed opposition. (D) It leads to the further but unacceptable conclusion that any project favored by Mayor Smith should be sanctioned simply on the basis of her having spoken out in favor of it. (E) It gives no indication of either the basis of Mayor Smith's former opposition to nuclear power plant construction or the reasons for her support for the Littletown project.

Short answer

The argument is criticized for not explaining Mayor Smith's change in stance, as pointed out in option (E).

Step-by-step solution

Understanding the Argument

The argument presented suggests that due to Mayor Smith's previous opposition to nuclear power, her support for the Littletown nuclear project is an indication of the project's safety. It implies that her past record lends credibility to her current stance.

Identifying the Argument's Assumptions

The argument assumes that Mayor Smith's shift in position is based on informed reasoning, without providing evidence of her technical expertise or reasons for changing her stance. It also suggests that her previous opposition makes her current support more credible without addressing any change in circumstances or evidence.

Evaluating the Criticism Points

Review the possible criticisms: (A) addresses irrelevant points about non-outspoken people. (B) touches on Mayor Smith's credibility in technical matters. (C) challenges assumptions about informed versus outspoken opposition. (D) suggests an overgeneralization of trust in Mayor Smith's decisions, unrelated to the argument focus. (E) points out a lack of explanation for her change from opposition to support.

Analyzing the Correct Criticism

Option E is the most critical ground because it highlights a key weakness of the argument: the lack of explanation for Mayor Smith's change in stance. Without understanding why she now favors the project, her past opposition does not logically support the belief that the project is safe.

Key concepts

Argument Evaluation

Evaluating an argument involves carefully examining each component to determine its validity and soundness. In the context of the exercise provided, evaluating the argument means assessing whether Mayor Smith's change in stance regarding the Littletown nuclear power plant logically supports the claim that the project is safe.

Here are some steps to follow:

• Identify Claims: Start by specifying what the argument claims. In this case, the main claim is that Mayor Smith's support implies the project’s safety.
• Analyze Evidence: Look for the evidence provided within the argument that supports the main claim. The argument assumes that her past opposition grants authority to her new position, which is lacking solid evidence.
• Check Assumptions: Determine whether assumptions made in the argument are stated or hidden. Here, an implicit assumption is that Mayor Smith is basing her views on factual safety data.
• Evaluate Logic: Assess whether the reasoning logically follows from the premises to conclusion without gaps or fallacies.

The key is thorough examination to understand whether the argument holds under scrutiny or collapses due to weak links.

Critical Thinking Skills

Critical thinking skills are essential for analyzing arguments effectively. These skills enable students to critically assess the claims and evidence presented and to understand the underlying assumptions and implications.

By employing critical thinking, students can:

• Question Assertions: They can ask critical questions about the reliability of Mayor Smith's apparent endorsement and its real implications for the safety of the plant.
• Detect Fallacies: Recognize logical fallacies, such as an appeal to authority, where the argument relies on Mayor Smith's authority without adequate evidence or rationale.
• Analyze Context: Evaluate the broader context of why Mayor Smith may have changed her stance and consider all relevant factors that could influence her decision.
• Draw Reasoned Conclusions: Based on evidence and logical reasoning, students can pull together insights to form a sound judgment about the argument's validity.

Practicing critical thinking develops the ability to discern truth from fallacy, improving decision-making and problem-solving capabilities.

Logical Assumption Identification

Assumptions in an argument act as the links that connect evidence to the conclusion. Identifying these assumptions is a critical component of argument analysis.

In the argument involving Mayor Smith, there are a couple of key assumptions:

• Competence and Consistency: It is presumed that Mayor Smith's consistent past opposition equates to her decision-making being based on solid, informed grounds now favoring the plant.
• Unspoken Expertise: The argument appears to assume she has gained technical expertise or new evidence suggesting that the plant is indeed safe.

When these assumptions are laid bare, their validity can be questioned and assessed.
Challenging Assumptions:

• Students should question whether Mayor Smith's past stance has any real bearing on her current judgment and expertise relative to the technical subject matter.
• The absence of tangible evidence or reasoning to justify her change is a critical shortfall in supporting the argument's conclusion.

Understanding and challenging these assumptions is essential in determining the cogency of the argument.

Argument Criticism

Critical examination of an argument identifies weaknesses and potential improvements. Argument criticism isn't about attacking the argument but rather finding areas where reasoning fails.

The given argument about Mayor Smith can be dissected for criticism as follows:

• Identify Flaws: The key flaw lies in the lack of explanation for Mayor Smith's opinion shift, as highlighted in option (E) of the multiple-choice criticism, which reflects a crucial missing link in understanding the safety advocacy of the project.
• Base on Evidence: Effective criticism requires concrete evidence. Asking for justification, reasons, or data backing Mayor Smith's newfound approval is pertinent.
• Constructive Feedback: Offer ways the argument could be strengthened. For example, if there are new safety reports or expert inputs, including these would make the argument more robust.

This constructive approach allows individuals to refine and develop stronger, more logically sound arguments while enhancing their persuasive abilities.