Circuits
Flaw/Vulnerable to Criticism
Now that we are on to flaw questions, we will need a good expression of the flaw before we look at the answer choices.
Let’s use the expanded dinosaur example again:
Despite its fearsome reputation and long-standing categorization by paleontologists as a predator, Tyrannosaurus rex was likely a scavenger. Its anatomical features—such as massive jaws ideal for bone-crushing and a robust body ill-suited for fast pursuits—are traits it shares with modern scavengers.
Here’s our circuit:
Using our trick for expressing flaws, we can say that the argument
assumes that sharing anatomical features with modern scavengers means you are likely a scavenger as well, and
overlooks the possibility that sharing anatomical features with modern scavengers MAY NOT MEAN you are a scavenger as well
Now that you’ve expressed that, it goes in your empty red box and the correct answer should align. It could be a bit more general, something like:
the author fails to recognize that anatomical features in creatures from different eras could have different uses with regard to food gathering
Or, it could be specific to this question, like:
the author assumes that dinosaurs will behave the way their modern counterparts do simply because they have similar skeletal and muscular features
But either way, we’re going to be looking for something that serves the same function as what we put in that red box!
Necessary Assumption
As Necessary Assumptions are a Flaw Family question type, we will need a good expression of the flaw before we look at the answer choices.
Let’s use a new example:
The state has decided on a company to hire to pave a highway. None of the current employees of this company have gone through the state’s Highway Contractor Safety Program. So the state selected a company whose current employees will not be aware of the latest safety protocols.
Here’s our circuit:
Using our trick for expressing flaws, we can say that the argument
assumes that not going through the state’s highway Contractor Safety Program means you won’t be aware of the latest safety protocols, and
overlooks the possibility that not going through the state’s highway Contractor Safety Program may not mean you won’t be aware of the latest safety protocols
Note: The assumption here involves two negatives, “…not going through…” and “…won’t be aware of…” When we then expressed it as “overlooks” that meant adding a THIRD negative, “…may not mean…” Often, when faced with so many negatives, it can be helpful to rephrase things in the positive. So, a rephrase of this could read “overlooks the possibility that not going through the state’s highway Contractor Safety Program may mean you may still be aware of the latest safety protocols”
Now that you’ve expressed all that, it goes in your empty red box.
A correct answer should be a concept that aligns with the above flaws, but also something without which that assumption CANNOT be possible.
Potential correct answer:
The contractor did not hire any private consultants to train its current employees on the newest state safety protocols.
Some things to notice about the above:
if the author is to be believed about their claim, we need this to be true. Otherwise, the employees WOULD have been exposed to those latest protocols.
Also, this does not GUARANTEE that they will not be aware of them. There are infinite other ways we could come up with that they would have been exposed: internet classes, website, printed materials, etc. But that’s OK, that’s not what this question was asking for. So, don’t hold yourself to that standard on necessary Assumption questions and save it for the next type, Sufficient Assumptions.
Finally, it seems that this right answer “fits” or resonates better with the negative expression of the flaw, the one that starts with “overlooks the possibility…” That is quite common (though not universal). Necessary Assumption sort of guards against that version of things.
Sufficient Assumption
Sufficient Assumption questions share much of their process with Necessary Assumption questions, so this will feel familiar!
Let’s stick with our contractor example:
The state has decided on a company to hire to pave a highway. None of the current employees of this company have gone through the state’s Highway Contractor Safety Program. So the state selected a company whose current employees will not be aware of the latest safety protocols.
Here’s our circuit again:
Again we express the flaw. The argument:
assumes that not going through the state’s highway Contractor Safety Program means you won’t be aware of the latest safety protocols, and
overlooks the possibility that not going through the state’s highway Contractor Safety Program may not mean you won’t be aware of the latest safety protocols
And again it goes in your empty red box.
This time, we are looking for an answer choice that surrounds our assumption, something that definitely demonstrates it though could demonstrate a great deal more.
Potential correct answer:
The state’s program is the only place where information regarding the safety protocols can be obtained.
Some things to notice about the above:
This time, we have guaranteed that the author’s argument is valid. There is no wiggle room, no opportunity for the employees to be aware of that information now that we know this.
Additionally, the answer choice has given you MORE than you need. We only needed the latest safety protocols to be restricted to the program, but in this answer ALL safety protocols are. And that’s OK! Sufficient just means enough, and you’re allowed to go as far past the finish line as you need to.
Principle Justify
What’s great about these questions is how much the item writers have told you about the argument: if the question is asking for a principle, that means that must be what’s missing! So already you know how your circuit will look once you’ve got the information laid out:
Let’s stick with our contractor example:
The state has decided on a company to hire to pave a highway. None of the current employees of this company have gone through the state’s Highway Contractor Safety Program. So the state selected a company whose current employees will not be aware of the latest safety protocols.
Here’s our circuit again:
Again we express the flaw. The argument:
assumes that not going through the state’s highway Contractor Safety Program means you won’t be aware of the latest safety protocols, and
overlooks the possibility that not going through the state’s highway Contractor Safety Program may not mean you won’t be aware of the latest safety protocols
And again it goes in your empty red box.
This time, we are looking for an answer choice that surrounds our assumption, something that definitely demonstrates it though could demonstrate a great deal more.
Potential correct answer:
The state’s program is the only place where information regarding the safety protocols can be obtained.
Some things to notice about the above:
This time, we have guaranteed that the author’s argument is valid. There is no wiggle room, no opportunity for the employees to be aware of that information now that we know this.
Additionally, the answer choice has given you MORE than you need. We only needed the latest safety protocols to be restricted to the program, but in this answer ALL safety protocols are. And that’s OK! Sufficient just means enough, and you’re allowed to go as far past the finish line as you need to.
Strengthen
Strengthen questions share something with Assumption questions: ultimately they are both serving to defend the author’s claim. So, we will likely focus on the “assumes” version of the flaw. Also, the distinction among the correct answers is subtle and important.
Let’s stick with our contractor example:
The state has decided on a company to hire to pave a highway. None of the current employees of this company have gone through the state’s Highway Contractor Safety Program. So the state selected a company whose current employees will not be aware of the latest safety protocols.
Here’s our circuit again:
Our flaw is now in the red box (where it deserves to be!)
To “strengthen” this argument, as the question demands, does not mean our answer has to be sufficient or necessary as the Assumption questions demand. Instead, it must only support the idea that the assumption in the red box is true. We’ve already seen something like this is our discussion of the Toulmin Method: it’s Backing!
Potential correct answers could include really anything as long as it make the truth of the assumption more probable. Some possibilities below:
Contractor employees almost never pay for private safety courses when their employers do not enroll them in state—run programs.
The state makes it prohibitively expensive to obtain information on the latest changes to safety protocols if you are not enrolled in one of its courses.
Some things to notice about the above:
These correct answers do not guarantee that the author’s argument is valid. There is room for the conclusion to still not be true, an opportunity for the employees to be aware of that information even given that we know this. But it does make it more likely that they do not, and that is the threshold for strengthening.
Additionally, the answer choices are not required for the conclusion to be valid. The details as to how and why those employees do not know the information could really be anything as long as the result is the same.
Weaken
Just as the Strengthen questions shared with Assumptions their support for the claim, Weaken questions share with Flaw questions their aim to attack it. So, this time we’ll likely focus on the “overlooks” version of the flaw
Once again our contractor example:
The state has decided on a company to hire to pave a highway. None of the current employees of this company have gone through the state’s Highway Contractor Safety Program. So the state selected a company whose current employees will not be aware of the latest safety protocols.
Here’s our circuit again:
Now we need to remind ourselves of that negative version of the flaw:
The argument overlooks the possibility that not going through the state’s highway Contractor Safety Program may not mean you won’t be aware of the latest safety protocols.
“Weakening” this argument, just as with “strengthening”, does not mean our answer has to be sufficient or necessary as the Assumption questions demand. Instead, it must only support the idea that the assumption in the red box is false; it’s sort of like negative Backing!
Potential correct answers could include really anything as long as it make the truth of the assumption less probable, or the truth that we have “overlooked” more probable. Some possibilities below:
Contractor employees often pay for private safety courses when their employers do not enroll them in state-run programs.
The state makes it quite easy and affordable to obtain information on the latest changes to safety protocols if you are not enrolled in one of its courses.
Some things to notice about the above:
These correct answers do not guarantee that the author’s argument is not valid. There is room for the conclusion to still be true, an opportunity for the employees to be unaware of that information even given that we know this. But it does make it less likely that they do not, and that is the threshold for weakening.
Additionally, the answer choices are not required for the conclusion to be invalid. The details as to how and why those employees are likely to know the information could really be anything as long as the result is the same.