The following argumentative excerpts from distinct policy debates each commit a characteristic logical error. Which description on the right correctly identifies the primary reasoning vulnerability of each argument on the left?
- Marine Archaeologist: The university's endowment committee refused to fund our deep-sea excavation on the grounds that deep-water sonar surveys are purely speculative ventures. However, all scientific inquiry begins with speculative hypotheses about unknown phenomena. Therefore, the committee's refusal to fund scientific research is logically inconsistent with academic exploration.Trades on an ambiguity between a term denoting high financial risk and a term denoting theoretical conjecture.
- Arborist: City council must immediately order the total removal of every non-native Norway maple across the metropolitan parks. If we do not eradicate every single one of these trees this season, our entire indigenous forest ecosystem will inevitably suffer total collapse within a decade.Fails to consider that there may be intermediate courses of action between two extreme alternatives.
- Curator: We can definitively date this newly discovered parchment codex to the mid-fourth century BCE. Dr. Vance, the nation's foremost constitutional trial attorney, examined the document's legal phrasing and concluded that it must have originated in that exact era.Relies on the testimony of an expert whose professional expertise is not relevant to the subject matter of the claim being evaluated.
- Energy Analyst: During the petroleum crises of the 1970s, deep-borehole geothermal extraction was prohibitively expensive compared to fossil fuels. Consequently, geothermal generation will never be economically viable as a baseload power source for modern electrical grids.Treats an economic limitation that held true under past technological conditions as an inherent constraint that must persist indefinitely.
Cevap
The marine archaeologist's argument pairs with trading on an ambiguity between high financial risk and theoretical conjecture; the arborist's argument pairs with failing to consider intermediate courses of action between two extreme alternatives; the curator's argument pairs with relying on the testimony of an expert whose expertise is not relevant to the subject matter; and the energy analyst's argument pairs with treating an economic limitation that held true under past technological conditions as an inherent constraint that must persist indefinitely.
Each argument contains an identifiable logical gap: the excavation argument commits equivocation by altering the definition of 'speculative'; the park arborist sets up a false dichotomy between complete eradication and total collapse; the curator commits an appeal to inappropriate authority by using a trial lawyer to date ancient manuscripts; and the geothermal analyst commits a temporal fallacy by projecting historical 1970s conditions into permanent future truths.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Identifying Fallacy Archetypes in Argumentative Reasoning
Tahmini Süre:2m 30s