Q21 - Saunders: Everyone at last week's

[Mab6q]

Okay, I understand what's wrong with the argument in that it makes the jump to those who didn't object to the demolition are right and those who supported the rehabilitation are wrong, but I dont see why D is any better than C. Isnt Saunders assuming that the absence of objection means that those people are right??

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your question.

Saunders has a lot to say, so let’s boil down the stimulus to an argument core.

Here it is:

The demolition strategy worked

-->

The demolition strategy was right and the rehabilitation strategy was wrong.

Our task is to find a reasoning flaw. In this case, Saunder’s issue is that he assumes that one strategy’s success means that other strategies would’ve failed. But how can he know that the rehab strategy would’ve failed if he never tried it? Here’s an analogy:

My goal is to lose weight
My strategy of eating only watermelon for a month worked.

-->

People who suggested moderation and exercise as a way to lose weight were wrong.

Again, I found a successful weight loss strategy... but how can I know that the moderation and exercise strategy would’ve failed if I never tried it?

(D) perfectly articulates this flaw.

(C) does not, and Saunders does not assume this. In fact, he acknowledges the presence of public dissent, namely all those people who argued for rehabilitation!

(A) is out of scope. Saunders doesn’t rely on fear.

(B) is not the reasoning flaw. He dismisses the rehabilitators’ argument because demolition worked, not because no one stepped up to do the rehabilitating. Remember that our job is to evaluate the link between the premise and the conclusion, not to bring in other potential issues.

(E) is irrelevant. Such details aren’t necessary for Saunders to make his argument.

Hope that helps.