Op-ed: The regional forestry commission recently suggested restricting commercial logging in the old-growth sectors of the Whispering Pines reserve during the spring nesting season of the spotted owl. The commission's proposal is completely unreasonable. Banning all timber harvesting in the region permanently would devastate the local economy and leave hundreds of mill workers unemployed. We simply cannot afford to shut down the entire timber industry.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the op-ed columnist's argument?
- It refutes an exaggerated version of the commission's proposal rather than addressing the specific limitations that were actually suggested.Cevap
- BIt attempts to weaken the opposing position by rejecting the foundational premise that the spotted owl requires protection during its nesting season.
- CIt incorrectly assumes that a correlation between a logging ban and economic decline implies that the ban is the primary cause of the decline.
- DIt draws a conclusion about the entire timber industry based on evidence that is relevant only to a small subset of local mill workers.
- EIt relies on an ambiguous shift in the meaning of the term 'reserve,' utilizing it in two logically distinct ways over the course of the argument.
Cevap
The correct answer is the option indicating that the argument refutes an exaggerated version of the commission's proposal rather than addressing the specific limitations that were actually suggested.
This option perfectly describes the Straw Man fallacy present in the stimulus. The original proposal is temporary (spring season) and localized (old-growth sectors). The columnist completely ignores these limitations, instead evaluating the economic impact of a permanent, region-wide ban. By substituting an extreme policy for a moderate one, the columnist makes the proposal much easier to defeat.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Straw Man Fallacy