Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

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

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

Step by step solution

01

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.
02

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.
03

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.
04

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.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

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.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Marine biologists had hypothesized that lobsters kept together in lobster traps eat one another in response to hunger. Periodic checking of lobster traps, however, has revealed instances of lobsters sharing traps together for weeks. Eight lobsters even shared one trap together for two months without eating one another. The marine biologists' hypothesis, therefore, is clearly wrong. The argument against the marine biologists' hypothesis is based on which one of the following assumptions? (A) Lobsters not caught in lobster traps have been observed eating one another. (B) Two months is the longest known period during which eight or more lobsters have been trapped together. (C) It is unusual to find as many as eight lobsters caught together in one single trap. (D) Members of other marine species sometimes eat their own kind when no other food sources are available. (E) Any food that the eight lobsters in the trap might have obtained was not enough to ward off hunger.

Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare. Such a position ignores the lessons of experience. Many important contributions to the public welfare that resulted from scientific research were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research. Suppose that a scientist in the early twentieth century had applied for public funds to study molds: who would have predicted that such research would lead to the discovery of antibiotics - one of the greatest contributions ever made to the public welfare? Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the argument? (A) The committal of public funds for new scientific research will ensure that the public welfare will be enhanced. (B) If it were possible to predict the general outcome of a new scientific research effort, then legislators would not refuse to commit public funds for that effort. (C) Scientific discoveries that have contributed to the public welfare would have occurred sooner if public funds had been committed to the research that generated those discoveries. (D) In order to ensure that scientific research is directed toward contributing to the public welfare, legislators must commit public funds to new scientific research. (E) Lack of guarantees that new scientific research will contribute to the public welfare is not sufficient reason for legislators to refuse to commit public funds to new scientific research.

It takes \(365.25\) days for the Earth to make one complete revolution around the Sun. Long-standing convention makes a year 365 days long, with an extra day added every fourth year, and the year is divided into 52 seven-day weeks. But since 52 times 7 is only 364 , anniversaries do not fall on the same day of the week each year. Many scheduling problems could be avoided if the last day of each year and an additional day every fourth year belonged to no week, so that January 1 would be a Sunday every year. The proposal above, once put into effect, would be most likely to result in continued scheduling conflicts for which one of the following groups? (A) people who have birthdays or other anniversaries on December 30 or 31 (B) employed people whose strict religious observances require that they refrain from working every seventh day (C) school systems that require students to attend classes a specific number of days each year (D) employed people who have three-day breaks from work when holidays are celebrated on Mondays or Fridays (E) people who have to plan events several years before those events occur

Harry Trevalga: You and your publication have unfairly discriminated against my poems. I have submitted thirty poems in the last two years and you have not published any of them! It is all because I won the Fenner Poetry Award two years ago and your poetry editor thought she deserved it. Publisher: Ridiculous! Our editorial policy and practice is perfectly fair, since our poetry editor judges all submissions for publication without ever seeing the names of the poets, and hence cannot possibly have known who wrote your poems. The publisher makes which one of the following assumptions in replying to Trevalga's charges of unfair discrimination? (A) The poetry editor does not bear a grudge against Harry Trevalga for his winning the Fenner Poetry Award. (B) It is not unusual for poets to contribute many poems to the publisher's publication without ever having any accepted for publication. (C) The poetry editor cannot recognize the poems submitted by Harry Trevalga as his unless Trevalga's name is attached to them. (D) The poetry editor's decisions on which poems to publish are not based strictly on judgments of intrinsic merit. (E) Harry Trevalga submitted his poems to the publisher's publication under his pen name.

Five years ago, during the first North American outbreak of the cattle disease \(\mathrm{CXC}\), the death rate from the disease was 5 percent of all reported cases, whereas today the corresponding figure is over 18 percent. It is clear, therefore, that during these past 5 years, \(\mathrm{CXC}\) has increased in virulence. Which one of the following, if true, most substantially weakens the argument? (A) Many recent cattle deaths that have actually been caused by \(\mathrm{CXC}\) have been mistakenly attributed to another disease that mimics the symptoms of \(\mathrm{CXC}\). (B) During the first North American outbreak of the disease, many of the deaths reported to have been caused by \(\mathrm{CXC}\) were actually due to other causes. (C) An inoculation program against \(\mathrm{CXC}\) was recently begun after controlled studies showed inoculation to be 70 percent effective in preventing serious cases of the illness. (D) Since the first outbreak, farmers have learned to treat mild cases of \(\mathrm{CXC}\) and no longer report them to veterinarians or authorities. (E) Cattle that have contracted and survived CXC rarely contract the disease a second time.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on English Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free