Merely based on unfounded assumption and dubious/suspicious evidence, the statement draws a
conclusion that. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that.
In addition, he indicates that. Furthermore, he cites the result of a recent survey in support
of this recommendation. At first glance, the author’s argument appears to be
somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it
is specious at best because if omit some essential or substantial concerns
to be address to substantiate the argument. In my point of view this argument suffers from
several logical flaws.
The argument tell us that many (a number of) . However, the speaker fails to indicate the
percentage of, so this evidence is far too vague to be meaningful.
The respondents must be statistically significant in number and representative of the overall .
A threshold problem is that the editorial neglects to indicate how recently the survey was
actually conducted. When samples are used to make general claims about a particular
group, the samples should be close enough in time to the
generalization. All we know in this editorial is that the survey was recently published.
The less recent the survey itself is, the less reliable the results are to indicate current
interest levels.
The argument assumes too hastily that will necessary result in the behavior that the argument
predicts. Perhaps, , Moreover, .
The editor’s recommendation depends on the assumption that no factors other than A caused B.
However, common sense informs me that this assumption is a poor one. A myriad of
other factors, including or , might just as likely be the cause
of B. To be specific, . Without ruling out these and other possible cause, the editor cannot
justifiably conclude that only by can .
The arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between the fact that and the claim that .
This argument is unacceptable unless there is compelling
evidence to support the connection between these two events. Perhaps, for example, result from .
Based on the fact that A occurred after B, the editor infers that should be responsible for .
However, the sequence of these events, in itself, does not suffice to prove that earlier
development caused the later one. It might have resulted from some
other events instead: --to just a few possibilities.
Without ruling out scenarios such as these,
the editor cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between and upon which editor’s
the recommendation depends.
The argument observe a correlation between A and B, then concludes that the former is the cause
of the latter. However , the argument fails to rule out other possible explanations for A or B.
For example, . Any of these factors might lead to B. Without ruling out all other
factors it is unfair to conclude that A is responsible for B.
It is possible that the mayor has confused cause with effect respecting the recent development
in Ocean view. Perhaps A was a response to B. Since the mayor has failed to account for this
possibility, the claim that is completely unwarranted.
A threshold problem involves the definition of A .The arguer fails to define this critical term.
If A is defined as B, then how C, is irrelevant to whether B. In short, without a clear
definition of A,
it is impossible to assess the strength of the argument.
The argument resets on the assumption that part typify nationwide. If this is
not the case, then it is entirely possible that. Thus, lacking more marketing
information about nationwide,
it is difficult to assess the merit of the memo’s recommendation.
In addition, the author fails to consider the possible negative impacts brought about by .
The author’s conclusion that is unwarranted. Profit is a factor of not only revenue,
but also costs. It’s entirely possible that the costs of , or other costs associated with,
will offset,
even outweigh the revenue. Besides, a myriad of other possible occurrence,
such as unfavorable economic conditions, might prevent from being as profitable
in the foreseeable future as the argument predicts.
The author claim that , because . The author assumes without justification that the background
condition have remained the same at different time. The assumption is unwarranted because things
rarely in the same over
extended periods of time. There are likely all kinds of
difference between A and B. For example, A ;however, B . Any of these scenarios, if true, would
serve to undermine the claim that
The arguer’s recommendation relies on what might be a poor analogy between A and B. The analogy
falsely depends on the assumption that in both A and B are similar. However, it is entirely
possible that A and B .
In short, without accounting for important possible differences between
A and B, the arguer cannot reasonably prove the proposed method will help A.
To strength the argument, instead of relying on a dubious analogy between A and B, the arguer
should supply evidence, perhaps by way of a survey or a marketing program at A, to
prove that A will indeed reap the similar benefits from the method.
Even assuming A is not the reason for the B, the author falsely assumes that the B must be
attributable to C. This “either-or” argument is fallacious in that it ignores other possible
causes of the B. For example, perhaps , or perhaps .
The author falsely depends on gratuitous assumption that . However, no evidence is stated in the
argument to support this assumption. For example, it is most likely that . Therefore,
the argument is unwarranted without ruling out such possibility.
In addition, the arguer commits a fallacy of hasty generalization. Even if A, it does not follow
that B. It is highly possible that other factors may have contributed to B. For instance.
Beside, the arguer does not
provide any solid information concerning B. Without ruling out these
and other possible factors that give rise to B, the author cannot confidently conclude that .
Unless the surveyors sampled a sufficient number of and did so randomly across the entire
spectrum, the survey results are not reliable to gauge generally.
The number of respondents/samples, in itself does
not ensure representativeness. For example, if the sample included only , then
the results would no doubt suggest . Or if (500) would account for only a little percentage,
which would renders the result of the survey meaningless.
To sum up, this arguer fails to substantiate its claim that , because the evidence cited in the
analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains.
To make the argument more convincing, the arguer would have
to provide more information with regard to . Additionally,
he would have to demonstrate that .
Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have
been more through had logically acceptable.