#25 - George: A well-known educator claims that children who

[Nicholas Noyes]

So answer E is correct because the "claim is consistent" with the occurrence since George was never read to and he does not enjoy reading. While his cousin was read to and it is never specified that his cousin does not enjoy reading (he just does not read often)....So therefore his argument is conforming with the claim? I still am confused with how this is a flaw.

-Nicholas

[Adam Tyson]

When two claims are said to be "consistent," it simply means that they can both be true at the same time. The well known educator said that children who are read to when they are young are "more likely" to enjoy reading later, but did not say that they MUST enjoy reading later. That means that there could still be people like George and his cousin who don't fit that general description, even while the educator is correct. It is consistent to say "X usually happens" and "X did not happen in these particular cases."

So, George is trying to disprove the educator's claim by citing particular cases (himself and his cousin), but those cases don't actually disprove the claim. That is George's flaw - his evidence doesn't prove his conclusion, because the educator can still be correct.