User avatar
 
WaltGrace1983
Thanks Received: 207
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 837
Joined: March 30th, 2013
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Q4 - Most small children are flat-footed

by WaltGrace1983 Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:17 pm

This is a weaken question that doesn't really have an argument core. It is just telling us to weaken the following treatment described:

    Flat-footedness is treated by having children wear special shoes that give extra support and develops the arch


Now there really isn't much I can pre-phrase here because there isn't a core. However, my first thought was simply to show that this treatment actually leads to something bad. Maybe it leads to having really unnatural or unequal arches. Maybe it will lead to back pain. I'm not too sure about what I can really look for past simply a bad consequence though.

    (A) This gives me no reason not to like the special treatment. In fact, I might like it even more now because maybe having all that extra support is good.

    (B) This is comparing flat feet to "feet with unusually high arches." We know nothing about those kinds of feet. Eliminate.

    (C) Are these the children who wore the "special shoes?" If the children who did NOT have corrected feet DID wear the "special shoes" then this would be a good answer. However, it gives us nothing about the special shoes and that is what we want to talk about!

    (D) This certainly gives us one reason to not like the treatment: the treatment is apparently pointless. There is absolutely no difference between wearing and not wearing the shoes so why wear the shoes? This definitely seems correct.

    (E) We only care about children who ARE flat-footed.
 
WhimsicalWillow
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 12
Joined: February 07th, 2020
 
 
 

Re: Q4 - Most small children are flat-footed

by WhimsicalWillow Sun May 10, 2020 6:36 pm

Rephrase: Flat foot-->discomfort-->special shoes as treatment

Gap: Author explains flat-foot kids receive special shoes as treatment to help develop arch. What if it hasn’t helped them? Is it possible treatment has not helped or could be bad?

A) No, TRAP AC. No direct impact on conclusion. Maybe other kids wear special shoes for fun but it still helps flat-footed kids too. It dents the credibility of the treatment.

B) No,so what? This has nothing to do with point of argument because we aren’t concerned on if flat feet are getting better. We are focused on weakening the treatment for flat feet.

C) No, so what? This is simply saying that sometimes children grow out of it and some don’t

D) Correct AC. If the effect of the treatment is the same whether or not flat-foot kids wear the special shoes, then it dents credibility in the treatment. It shows effect without cause.

Cause must precede Effect C---E

Same EFFECT (develop natural arches), without CAUSE (wearing the special shoes to treat flat-footedness). This is a common means of weakening a causation flaw: cause without effect or effect without cause

E) No impact on argument