#5 - Montgomery, a biologist who is also well read in

[Adam Tyson]

The flaw here isn't about others not getting negative appraisal, jbrown1104, but about others being just as extreme. Notice that the stimulus never says those other extreme folks weren't criticized, so be careful not to assume this in your analysis.

This argument is akin to saying a particular notorious dictator shouldn't be criticized for his human rights abuses because there are other dictators who are just as bad. Or, to be less extreme, it's like saying Batman vs Superman shouldn't be called out for being an awful movie because other DC superhero movies are just as bad as it was. Maybe they ALL deserve to be criticized? It turned out that the flaw had nothing to do with the biologist's qualifications (which would have been a source argument) but about a comparison that did not, by itself, provide sufficient reason to reach the conclusion.

[jbrown1104]

Thanks Adam!

I think I still need a little more clarification. Could you please explain in depth how the comparison is a flaw. I am worried that I won't be able to detect the same flaw in similar arguments.

Thanks!
JB

[Adam Tyson]

The comparison is not a flaw in itself. It's perfectly okay to compare these people to each other. The problem is, the author says that the biologist does not deserve a negative appraisal because the archaeologists did the same thing that he did, but he left out considering whether those archaeologist might also deserve a negative appraisal. If they did, then the biologist might also deserve it, and the author would be wrong.

[jbrown1104]

Hi!

Thank you for breaking down the question thus far. It seems like I am getting further away from the actual flaw the more I study this question. So, the flaw isn't that the others didn't get negative appraisal nor is that Dr. Montgomery is being compared to the others. The flaw is that the author left out whether they should have or shouldn't have gotten negative appraisal. But I am still not seeing the flaw here as clear as I should be.

Can you please give an example of what would've made the reasoning valid. Maybe when I see a comparison of the two it will be easier to see the flaw.

Thanks!

[James Finch]

Hi J. Brown,

This is actually one of the most common flaws in everyday life, commonly know as "whataboutism." It's used to distract from criticism of one thing by pointing out perceived flaws in something else, without actually rebutting any of the original criticisms. The only way to make such reasoning valid is to establish a premise that if anyone or anything else has the flaw, then others with the flaw do not merit criticism.

In this case, it would be "extremism" in regard to architectural history; if the stimulus had also contained an additional premise that the others with extreme views in the field don't deserve criticism for the extremism of their views, then the argument would be internally valid.

Hope this helps!