Law School Discussion

how is this even a flaw!?!

ě

  • ****
  • 4500
  • non sequitur
    • View Profile
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2007, 10:14:44 AM »
Ok, PT #06 - Oct 1992

The flaw is as someone has said that the argument takes for granted that what the security guards says is a fact. This could be true, but it doesn't have to be. The question doesn't ask anything about the burglary itself, you're just supposed to find an argument with a similar flaw. That means, you have to find a flaw where some person or entity makes a claim and that the conclusion assumes that claim to be factual without further proof.

Alternative b) to this question is the correct answer, because the argument assumes that the store's competitors are correct, without any further evidence supporting that.

Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2007, 10:20:38 AM »
I don't have PT#6. The oldest one that I have is 7.

Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2007, 10:34:14 AM »
maybe the security guard is the theif

ě

  • ****
  • 4500
  • non sequitur
    • View Profile
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2007, 07:46:45 AM »
I already answered the question... doesn't matter if the security guard is a thief, that's not what the question is about. Read four posts up :(

Marko

  • ****
  • 169
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: how is this even a flaw!?!
« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2007, 08:11:03 AM »
from the fact that the security guard believes something to be the case, the author concludes that it MUST be the case.

if he said something like "we have no reason to believe the guard is lying, so it's likely to be true" then it would be an okay argument but the author doesn't qualify it. he makes a hasty generalization which is a type of fallacy common in inductive arguments.

the word MUST should jump out at you. MUST means that there are no other possible explanations except for the one given by the guard. it's absolutely true and under no circumstance can the premise given lead us to a false conclusion. does the argument really warrant such a strong conclusion given the premise is just one eye witness testimony? imagine a criminal law system based on that.

ps gain access can be assumed to be equal to enter i think. they would never test the logical equivalence of these two because it's so subjective.