Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
In this dialogue, Benson asserts that his city needs to restrict growth. Based on the fact that the same arguments were made in the past, even when growth was justified, Willett disagrees, asserting that the city need not restrict growth.
The flaw in Willett’s reasoning is this: he presumes that just because growth was justified in the past, there is no need for restriction of growth in the present.
Answer choice (A): Willett does not presume that growth is necessarily good, just that there is no reason to restrict it—that is, it’s not necessarily bad.
Answer choice (B): There is no such personal attack in Willett’s reasoning, so this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Willett presumes that nothing has changed since the last two times growth restrictions were called for. Since there is no basis for this presumption of no change, Willett’s argumentation is flawed.
Answer choice (D): Willett’s flaw is not that he fails to take these things into account, it’s that he bases his present conclusion on past circumstances.
Answer choice (E): Willett does not discuss the general qualifications of the zoning board from 10 years ago. The premise is that they were justified in not restricting growth, so consideration of their qualifications is not required in this instance.
#2 - Benson: In order to maintain the quality of life in our
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
I am very confused by the reasoning in this question and I hope someone could clear this up for me. We are making the determination that he fails to consider recent changes to the idea of restricting growth. However, in his argument he states, "there is nothing new in this idea of restricting growth". Thus, it appears that he has addressed the possibility of new ideas on restricting growth and discounted answer choice C.
Willett's argument says that there is nothing new in the idea, but the idea can remain the same while the conditions the idea is supposed to address could have changed. Thus, he has not addressed the possibility of new conditions that would make exactly the same idea no longer a bad one.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1