City Council Member: Some residents argue that our town should ban all commercial development in the historic district on the grounds that such development inherently alters the character of the neighborhood. But if we accept the premise that any alteration of character is sufficient justification for a prohibition, we would also be forced to ban the restoration of dilapidated residential properties, since those renovations also drastically alter the neighborhood's current character. Thus, the residents' rationale is unsound.
Which of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used by the city council member?
- attempting to undermine a position by demonstrating that the principle underlying it would lead to an unacceptable consequenceCevap
- Brejecting a proposed policy by disputing the factual accuracy of the evidence provided in its favor
- Carguing that an opponent's position is flawed because it relies on an ambiguous interpretation of a key term
- Dintroducing external evidence to establish a conclusion that goes beyond what can be logically inferred
- Echallenging an argument by treating a statement intended only as background context as a central premise
Cevap
The correct answer is the option stating that the argument attempts to undermine a position by demonstrating that the principle underlying it would lead to an unacceptable consequence.
The correct answer accurately captures the argumentative technique known as reductio ad absurdum. The council member abstracts the general rule from the residents' argument ('any alteration of character is sufficient justification for a prohibition') and applies it to a universally accepted good ('restoration of dilapidated residential properties') to prove that the rule cannot be sound.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
General Method of Reasoning