7-75 Flaw in the Argument Drill #6

[owent]

In reviewing the applicants, we have come across a number of excellent candidates, and thus we must now separate candidates based on an analysis of past actions. Dr. Jones is known to have violated the ethical rules once before. Therefore,
we can be sure she has already violated the rules again.

I put this down as a time shift error since it is basing the argument off an event that had happened in the past. The book says it's an exceptional case/over generalization. I can see the case for both, but my question is does it matter if you can distinguish between the two if you are recognizing that a flaw exists? Theoretically, if a the question stem asked to identify the flaw and one answer choice said "uncritically draws an inference from what has been true in the past to what will be true later" and another says "supports a larger claim on the basis of a single example" (or similar wording that basically says "time shift error" and "over generalization" respectively) then I would have a tough time choosing between the two. Could someone explain why it is definitively over generalization/exceptional case and not a time shift error?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Owent,

You ask a great question! Here's the good news, which I think you already suspected: if LSAC decided to word this in the manner you suggest, it would be the right answer and there wouldn't be another "overgeneralization/exceptional case" answer present. In other words, you'd get it right regardless of what you term it That said, let's talk about it a bit more.

In one certain sense, many argument flaws could be seen as time shift errors since there is often the passage of time (causal arguments, for example, have a cause that occurs prior to the effect and thus they have a time element). So, the presence of the passage of time does not immediately indicate a time-shift flaw. Instead, the standard that I often think about is whether there is an inherent belief that nothing has changed over time, and that a conclusion is made where the fact that things could have changed is missed. Is that an element here? Yes, because time passes and it's assumed the person didn't change (a bit different than all things in the world stayed the same, but similar enough that we'll say it's the same). But note what happened in the argument: "thus we must now separate candidates based on an analysis of past actions..." So, the argument tells you that the single past action itself is the basis of the conclusion being drawn, which signals to me an overgeneralization is the specific flaw here, and less so the static nature of things over time (although again, I get that the judgment is made assuming she will behave the same way).

Thus, you can see the how questions can arise over how to term this, which is likely not the last time you'll encounter something similar. They like to mix various flaws and then only ask about one of them, and thinking about it now is good practice.

Thanks!