Q16 - Editorial: The main contention of Kramer's book

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Coal companies are NOT to blame for our region's economic difficulties (Kramer's contention is false).
Evidence: The contention was based on shady allegations that are countered by specific evidence. (disgrunteld ex-employees whined that the company never invested locally, but it did!)

Answer Anticipation:
This is one of the 10 Famous Flaws: Unproven vs. Untrue. This author has wounded the argument that Kramer tried to make. Kramer was trying to prove X, and apparently failed this time around. But that doesn't mean that our author gets to conclude that X is false. Just because you failed to convince me that God exists doesn't mean that I get to conclude that there is no God.

The author basically showed that the BASIS for Kramer's contention was flawed: angry employees said the coal company didn't invest in other industries, when in fact they DID invest. But just because the BASIS for your contention was wrong doesn't mean your contention was wrong.

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Did our author conclude that "a party is not to blame"? Yes, "coal companies are not to blame". Was the only premise something that sounded like "someone ELSE is to blame"? No.

(B) Did our author conclude that "a person's statement is false"? Yes, "the book's main contention is false". Was the only premise something that sounded like, "If coal companies WERE to blame for our region's economic struggles, it would tarnish the coal industry's reputation?" No.

(C) Did the author reject an argument? Basically yes, "the book's main contention is false". Was the only premise something that sounded like "Kramer has an ulterior motive for blaming the coal companies"? No.

(D) When we see an answer addressing the "Nec vs. suff" flaw, we know that just means "the author introduced a conditional logic statement and proceeded to perform an illegal negation or illegal reversal". Was there a conditional logic statement in this argument? No.

(E) Did our author conclude that "a person's statement is false"? Yes, "the book's main contention is false". Was the only evidence something that sounded like, "The case that Kramer makes in favor of this contention is bogus"? Yes. Our author said "Kramer bases this contention primarily on X. Yet X is false."

Takeaway/Pattern: The old school versions of Unproven vs. Untrue were easier to spot, because they explicitly referred to a lack of evidence to back up a certain claim. They actually came closer to literally saying "there is no proof for this claim". (i.e. "No one has proven that cell phones cause cancer. Thus, they don't cause cancer." Modern versions of this flaw feel much more like this. An author invalidates an argument based on exposing a faulty premise or assumption. But just because someone unsuccessfully tried to prove X (in the argument sense) doesn't mean that X is untrue.

#officialexplanation

[CaseyW23]

Learning is quite complicated in itself and requires the study of many materials, often it is quite difficult to find. At such moments, you can use the https://studyhippo.com/essays-on/of-mice-and-men/ this site, which contains materials on a variety of topics. I am a student and often use it when I encounter learning problems.