91Ó°ÊÓ

Genevieve: Increasing costs have led commercial airlines to cut back on airplane maintenance. Also, reductions in public spending have led to air traffic control centers being underfunded and understaffed. For these and other reasons it is becoming quite unsafe to fly, and so one should avoid doing it. Harold: Your reasoning may be sound, but I can hardly accept your conclusion when you yourself have recently been flying on commercial airlines even more than before. Which one of the following relies on a questionable technique most similar to that used in Harold's reply to Genevieve? (A) David says that the new film is not very good, but he has not seen it himself, so I don't accept his opinion. (B) A long time ago Maria showed me a great way to cook lamb, but for medical reasons she no longer eats red meat, so I'll cook something else for dinner tonight. (C) Susan has been trying to persuade me to go rock climbing with her, claiming that it's quite safe, but last week she fell and broke her collarbone, so I don't believe her. (D) Pat has shown me research that proves that eating raw green vegetables is very beneficial and that one should eat them daily, but I don't believe it, since she hardly ever eats raw green vegetables. (E) Gabriel has all the qualifications we have specified for the job and has much relevant work experience, but I don't believe we should hire him, because when he worked in a similar position before his performance was mediocre.

Step by step solution

01

Analyzing Harold's Argument Technique

Harold's technique is to question the validity of Genevieve's conclusion based on her personal behavior. He argues that because Genevieve continues to fly, despite claiming it's unsafe, her conclusion is questionable.

02

Identifying Key Argument Elements

The key to Harold's argument is dismissing the conclusion by pointing out a contradiction between Genevieve's behavior and her claim. This technique is known as "ad hominem" or appealing to hypocrisy.

03

Evaluating Each Option for Similarity

We need to evaluate each answer option to determine which one also attempts to dismiss an argument by pointing out a similar contradiction in personal behavior.

04

Option A Analysis

Option A dismisses the opinion of David on the film based on his lack of personal experience with it. This does not involve a contradiction in behavior or appeal to hypocrisy.

05

Option B Analysis

Option B involves a change in behavior due to medical reasons, not a contradiction, so this does not match Harold's argumentative technique.

06

Option C Analysis

Option C dismisses Susan's safety claim about rock climbing because she had an accident. While it critiques her reliability, it focuses on her suffering an incident, not a contradiction in her behavior.

07

Option D Analysis

Option D dismisses the research-backed claim about eating vegetables based on the fact that Pat does not follow her advice, which points out a contradiction between her claim and behavior, similar to Harold's technique.

08

Option E Analysis

Option E rejects a hiring proposal due to past performance, relying on different reasoning focused on historical performance rather than a contradiction in behavior or claim.

09

Conclusion

Option D best mirrors Harold's technique, as it uses the inconsistency between Pat's claim and her actions to dismiss the reliability of the claim, matching the appeal to hypocrisy seen in Harold's reply.

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 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

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

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is a skill that empowers us to evaluate information effectively. It involves analyzing facts objectively and forming a well-reasoned judgment. In the given exercise, both Genevieve and Harold are having a debate about the safety of flying. To engage in this type of reasoning, a few key steps are critical.

• Identifying Arguments: Recognize the core assertions and claims being made.
• Analyzing Evidence: Assess the evidence presented to support these claims.
• Evaluating Conclusions: Determine whether the conclusions logically follow from the evidence and arguments provided.

By practicing critical thinking, one can dissect arguments like those presented by Genevieve and Harold. You'll consider whether Genevieve's examples about rising costs and reduced safety measures logically support her conclusion that flying is unsafe. Meanwhile, critical thinking helps to question whether Harold's response truly undermines her argument by focusing on her behavior instead of her reasoning.
In essence, developing critical thinking skills enables individuals to navigate complex arguments and avoid accepting conclusions without sufficient justification.

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. Understanding these fallacies is crucial to ensure solid reasoning, both in constructing and evaluating arguments.
In the exercise, Harold uses a fallacy known as "ad hominem" or more specifically, "appeal to hypocrisy". This occurs when a person's argument is dismissed by pointing out their contradictory behavior instead of directly addressing the argument's merits.
Some other common logical fallacies include:

• Straw Man: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
• Red Herring: Distracting from the topic at hand by introducing an unrelated point.
• Slippery Slope: Arguing that a small event will cause a major effect without evidence.

Recognizing logical fallacies involves scrutinizing arguments for such weak points, just like assessing if Harold's technique fairly addresses Genevieve's concern. Being aware of these can prevent one from being swayed by faulty reasoning, allowing for stronger debates and discussions.

Argument Analysis

Argument analysis is the process of understanding and evaluating an argument to determine its validity and soundness. This involves dissecting the structure and components of an argument much like how we break down Harold's reply to Genevieve.
There are several steps in conducting a thorough argument analysis:

• Identify the Claim: Determine the main point or conclusion being argued.
• Assess the Premises: Look at the supporting reasons given for the claim.
• Evaluate the Logic: Check if the premises logically lead to the conclusion.

In the original exercise, Harold attempts to refute Genevieve's claim about the dangers of flying by focusing on her actions. Through diligent argument analysis, we can see that Harold uses the "appeal to hypocrisy" fallacy. This fallacy, however, doesn't genuinely confront the strength of Genevieve's claim based on safety data or economic concerns.
Engaging in effective argument analysis helps distinguish between reliable conclusions and those disrupted by logical inconsistencies. This skill is invaluable in both academic settings and everyday discussions.