#5 - Letter to the editor: Middle-class families in wealthy

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)

The argument in this stimulus is that the criticism of middle-class families’ lifestyles should not be taken seriously because the source of the criticism is often a celebrity whose lifestyle is as, or more, environmentally damaging. Of course, the flaw in this argument is that the author attacks the source of the criticism, as opposed to the validity of the criticism itself. This is known as a Source argument.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, the author criticizes something about the people giving the argument (celebrities), as opposed to attacking the argument itself.

Answer choice (B): The sincerity of the celebrities’ beliefs is not addressed or important to the argument.

Answer choice (C): The argument is about the people who support the argument, not about the grounds advanced to support the argument. No grounds are given beyond a personal attack.

Answer choice (D): This is an internal contradiction flaw and does not appear in this argument.

Answer choice (E): This is an overgeneralization flaw and also does not appear in this argument.

[Blueballoon5%]

Answer choice (C): The argument is about the people who support the argument, not about the grounds advanced to support the argument. No grounds are given beyond a personal attack.

Hi! I have an english question. What does it mean to have "grounds advanced to support the argument"? An example would be helpful!
(English is not my first language).

[Adam Tyson]

"Grounds" means reasons or evidence, bluballoon. Think of it literally as being the ground upon which a structure stands. The ground, or foundation, supports the structure in the same way the evidence, or premises, support the argument.

[Coleman]

Hi,

I'm having a hard time understanding why the correct answer choice is (A). My reasoning goes like this:

Conclusion: The criticism of middle-class families in wealthy nations should not be taken too seriously.
Premise: Its source is often a movie star or celebrity, and their lifestyle would destroy the environment if widely adopted.

I think the main takeaway from the passage is that middle-class families in wealthy nations often become a target of criticism because the people who make this criticism are misled by the source that demonstrates a lifestyle of a movie star or celebrity which clearly doesn't reflect the average middle-class families. Not many people live in the Hollywood mansion in North America except movie starts or celeb. Any correction in my interpretation?

(A) states, "criticizes a characteristic of the people giving an argument rather than criticizing the argument itself."
The characteristic here means the people who make the criticism rely on the wrong source? Can you breakdown each word related to the original passage?

Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

The criticism here is not coming from someone who listened to the movie stars, Coleman. It's the movie stars who are making those criticisms themselves! That's what the author means by the "source" of the criticism - it's the person doing the criticizing.

When the author says not to take them seriously because of the way they live, the author is attacking a characteristic of the movie stars instead of focusing on whatever their argument is. It may be hypocritical of them to criticize middle class people for being wasteful while they themselves live wasteful lives, but that doesn't mean they're wrong!