Flaw in the reasoning: Lesson 7 homework

[cpando1995@gmail.com]

Hi,

I'm having trouble distinguishing time shift errors from exceptional case/overgeneralization errors in question 6 that appears on Identify the Flaw in the Argument Drill. The author is guaranteeing that an event is bound to happen because it has happened in the past. After looking at the correct answer, I can see how that can be an overgeneralization, but I don't understand how it can't also be a time shift error.


Thanks,
Cindel

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Cindel,

Thanks for your question, it is a good one.

This flaw is better described as an overgeneralization from an exceptional case than as an erroneous time-shift because it doesn't uncritically project past trends into the future, but it does assume that what happened once in the past must therefore have happened again in the past. Notice that the text says, specifically, decisions will be based on an analysis of 'past actions,' and then makes unwarranted assumptions about these past actions; the time-frame never shifts from the past. There is no time-shift at all, therefore there cannot be an erroneous time-shift.

I hope that clears it up!

[cpando1995@gmail.com]

Thanks Clay! Now I have a much better understanding of those two flaws; looks like I didn't pay close attention to the key words/phrases you mentioned.