#17 - Politician: Critics of the wetlands protection bill

[Jkjones3789]

Hello, So I'm not sure if I'm going to need to retake the test in Sept but might as well continue from where I left off lolz.... With these flaw questions I find myself getting tripped up. Do you have any advice for doing flaws, like why isn't this A... I felt he was attacking the motives of the critics which is an ad hominem attack ? Thank You

[Ron Gore]

Hi JK,

There are really two keys to Flaw in the Reasoning questions. First, you need to understand why the argument is flawed, so that you can get a good prephrase. Second, you've got to understand how to go through the answer choices.

If you're having trouble getting a prephrase for the correct answer choice, use the Fact Test to get rid of any answer choice that describes a type of argumentation that was not present in the stimulus. Be very critical of the answer choices, holding them to the same high standard you use for Must Be True answer choices. Then, of the answer choices that are left, make sure the one you select describes a flaw. Very often, an answer choice to a Flaw in the Reasoning question will say that the author failed to consider something that turns out to be irrelevant to the conclusion. Even if it is true that the author did not consider whatever the answer choice is describing, it is not a flaw to keep irrelevant information out of an argument, so the answer choice would pass the Fact Test yet still be incorrect.

In this case, the politician's flaw is not a Source Argument. In a Source Argument, the author points to some characteristic of the person, and then based on that characteristic concludes that the person's conclusion is false. In this case, a Source Argument would be more like if the politician said that since critics don't care about what happens to the wetlands, then their position about the definition of the term "wetlands" is incorrect. In this argument, rather than using a characteristic of the critics as evidence for the conclusion, the author uses the evidence to reach a conclusion about a characteristic of the critics.

The true flaw here is that the politician fails to address the critics' concern over the definition of the word "wetlands," instead labeling their position as "quibbling." Answer choice (B) describes this flaw, and so is the correct answer choice.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Ron

[kevin.hussain24]

Hello,
I dont understand why D is wrong?

Thank You
Kevin H

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Kevin!

So remember that in identifying flaws, we identify the conclusion, identify the premises, and then ask ourselves why the premises do not prove the conclusion. Here, the conclusion is that quibbling over the definition of the term "wetlands" shows that the critics care little about what really happens to the wetlands. This is based on the premise that the bill with a more restrictive definition of the term wetlands would place stricter limits on the development of wetlands than existing regulations. The flaw, as answer choice (B) points out, is that quibbling over the definition of wetlands might actually have a big impact on what really happens to the wetlands, thus showing that the critics may actually care what happens to the wetlands.

Answer choice (D) is incorrect because the author does not need to provide a defense for a less restrictive definition of "wetlands" to support his argument that the critics don't really care about the wetlands. The critics are the ones who want a less restrictive definition and our author is not required to fully explain their arguments when he is trying to argue against them.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey