Faulty Comparison
Some may say that elementary age children should not receive participation awards in sports because "In recent eye-tracking experiments...kids were asked to draw pictures. Those who heard praise suggesting they had an innate talent were then twice as fixated on mistakes they’d made in their pictures" (Text 4, Lines 23-25).
What is the faulty comparison made with this piece of evidence?
Studying the effects of praise on children's perceptions of their artistic abilities will not necessarily directly translate to their performance in sports in the exact same way.
Some argue that pet-friendly work places are beneficial because "workers are less burdened with guilt about leaving a pet at home alone while they are at work and then will be more likely to work longer hours if required" (Text 1, Lines 27-29).
What is the questionable assumption in this argument?
Feeling guilty about leaving pets at home is not the only reason workers might not want to work longer hours.
Some argue that we should eliminate the use of shark nets to prevent shark attacks because "the risk of shark bite is so low that many more stitches are administered as the result of shell and glass lacerations than shark bites" (Text 2, Lines 6-8).
What is the flaw in this logic?
The statistic about how unlikely a shark bite is does not mean that shark bites are only as deadly as shell and glass lacerations.
Some argue that pets should be allowed in the workplace because it will increase communication based on the fact that when you walk your dog in a park, you receive "more waves, ‘hellos’, and acknowledgements than if you had been walking by yourself" (Text 3, Lines 32-33).
What is the faulty comparison in this argument?
Just because more people say hello when you are walking your dog does not necessarily mean that communication will increase if there are pets allowed in the office.
Some argue that soccer players should not wear concussion headbands because “Athletes may become more aggressive knowing that they have an extra layer of protection, so the headband could actually increase injury” (Text 1, Lines 39-40).
What is the questionable assumption in this argument?
There is no guarantee that players will become more aggressive because they are wearing the concussion headband.
Some argue that the government should not limit added sugars in foods and drinks because "sugar is natural. Sugar is a nutrient" (Text 3, Line 41).
What is the flaw in logic in this argument?
It may be natural and a nutrient, but anything in excess is bad for you. These facts do not negate the harmful effects of too much sugar.
Some argue that using the internet is making us smarter because "brain scans suggest that searching Google actually stimulates more parts of the brain than reading a book" (Text 3, Lines 57-58).
What is the faulty comparison in this argument?
Having more parts of the brain stimulated does not necessarily mean we are smarter. It depends how you are defining "smart".
Some say that congresspeople should have term limits because "New people are more likely to think outside the box" (Text 1, Line 38).
What is the questionable assumption in this argument?
Being elected to congress requires you to appeal to a large number of voters. People with fresh new ideas are NOT more likely to be elected even if they are more likely to "think outside the box".
Some argue that elementary-age children should not receive participation awards in sports because it “may even convey to our outstanding achievers that their hard work and skill is no more special than the work of their mediocre counterparts” (Text 2, Lines 28-31).
What is the logical flaw in this argument?
Giving participation trophies does not make the other trophies that more skilled players win worth any less.
Some say that we know term limits for congress people are beneficial because, "political scientists have studied states’ and foreign governments’ experiences with term limits to project what effects the measure would have on Congress" (Text 4, Lines 56-59).
What is the faulty comparison in this argument?
Just because something played out a certain way at the state or local government level or in a foreign government, does not mean that is exactly how it will play out in the American Federal government.
Some say that using Artificially Intelligent toys benefits children because it teaches them to take care of something:
"For instance, Cozmo the robot needs to be fed, repaired and played with. Boris Sofman, the chief executive of Anki, the company behind Cozmo, says that the idea is to create “a deeper and deeper emotional connection. And if you neglect him, you feel the pain of that” (Text 4, Lines 44-47).
What is the questionable assumption in this argument?
It is assumes you will feel pain if you neglect Cozmo, but you may not seeing as his suffering will not be real.
Some say that the accumulation of plastic bags does not pose a threat to our environment because "plastic shopping bags are estimated to make up less than 1 percent of litter" (Text 1, Lines 18-19).
What is the flaw in logic with this argument?
Less than 1% of all litter is still a massive amount of litter in the grand scheme of the world.