Essay

Question 1

Outline Template

Answer 1

Para 1 - Intro
> Summarize the author's conclusion
> Acknowledge the argument's merits
> State thesis - arg contains FLAWS that WEAKEN the argument's conclusion (UNSOUND reasoning / FAULTY reasoning)
> Introduce main points (flaws) 

Para 2 - Body 1 (Flaw 1)
> Introduce one flaw
> Explain how it weakens the conclusion or makes it less likely to be true
> Suggest ways to FIX the flaw (strengthen the conclusion)

Para 3 - Body 2 (Flaw 2)

Para 4 - Conclusion

Question 2

Practice Argument:

An argument claims that firing half of a company’s employees will help the company to reduce costs and therefore become more profitable.

> What is the conclusion?
What are the assumptions? Why are they flawed?
How do you fix them?

Answer 2

Conclusion is that firing half of the company’s employees will cause the company to be more profitable.

Bad assumption is that firing of employees – which is a sizable amount – will not result in adverse effects, such as lower revenues, reduced productivity, etc.

Fix (bolster the claim) by presenting evidence that the employees in question work for a product line that is about to be made obsolete by the market, so there isn’t any alternative work that they could do for the company.

Question 3

Read/Analyze step: IDENTIFY FLAWS

- What should you be thinking about?

Answer 3

Try the “CCAST” System as you go through the argument (LINE BY LINE)

1) Conclusion - why doesn’t the conclusion follow logically from the premises?

2) Counterexamples - what counterexamples would disprove the author’s assertions?
- e.g., different cases, causes, or circumstances overlooked by the author
> e.g., unforeseen/unintended consequences

3) Assumptions - What assumptions are made by the author, probably in an unjustified way?
> Assumption about the CAUSE a problem (i.e., cause of collisions = lack of knowledge)
> Assumptions about how well the PLAN will work (i.e., pilots will automatically obey the warning).

4) Strengthen - What type of evidence would strengthen the argument/conclusion? (related to #1)
5) Terms - what specific words or terms in the argument create logical gaps or other problems?

Question 4

IDENTIFY FLAWS

Common logical fallacies x3 buckets

Answer 4

(1) Faulty Use of Evidence (sketchy evidence)
> A) Limited Sample Size (e.g., small geographic region rather than global scale).
> B) Troubled Analogy/Comparison (X and Y have differences that have been ignored)
—-> e.g., Higher traffic accident rate than neighbours (IGNORES population differences, car ownership difference)
> C) Evidence Proves Something Else than what author claims it does
——> e.g., drivers are mostly found to be at fault (but could the courts be bad or bureaucratic?)

(2) Flawed ASSUMPTIONS in the argument (such that author cannot logically draw a conclusion from the premises).
> A) No PLAN is Perfect - arg OVERLOOKS challenges or technical failure
> B) Author IGNORES adverse side effects on stakeholders AND alternative causes
—-> ironic side effects (like no one buying into the proposed plan)
> C) Need both Skill and Will to succeed in order to carry out a plan (e.g., collision warning system and pilots - author assumes just skill or will alone is enough)
> D) Correlation does not equal causation (it could be random, or something else causes them both)
> If X occurred AFTER Y, that does not mean Y caused X.
> If X caused Y in the past, that does not mean X will always cause Y in the future (circumstances could change).

(3) Faulty Use of Language
> Extreme Words
> Vague Terms
> Math fallacy (author makes an assumption about real quantities when only relative figures have been given)