{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Passage 4 1 c it’s impossible to tell the issue

Info iconThis preview shows pages 9–11. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Passage 4 1. c) It’s impossible to tell. The issue here is that it isn’t clear whether the reporter really is the guy who saved the city or not. If he is, then he may have a vested interest in keeping that secret. But if he isn’t, then he has no vested interest. This is a case where there isn’t enough information to be able to tell. See pp. 31–33. 2. b) No. We don’t expect reporters to be especially detached, so there is no possibility of a conflict of interest here. See pp. 34–35. 3. c) It’s impossible to tell. This is a difficult case. If the reporter really is the guy who saved the city, it’s clear he’s omitting important information about that, which slants the argument. On the other hand, if he isn’t the guy who saved the city, then there doesn’t seem to be any omission. Without knowing more about him, we can’t tell if this argument is slanted by omission or not. See pp. 36–38. 4. b) No. There’s no reason to believe that what is stated here is manipulated or coloured in any way. What’s given is presented clearly and fairly. See pp. 38–40. 5. a) It does. It clearly does, as it responds to the editor-in-chief’s argument that the reporter looks like the guy who saved the city. It might need to consider more or unfold in more detail, but it certainly does consider opposing views. See pp. 40–41. Passage 5 1. a) Yes. This is an advertisement for a Whatsit. Thus, the advertising company has a vested financial interest in selling as many Whatsits as possible. See pp. 31–33. Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Thinking , Fifth Edition © Oxford University Press Canada, 2012 2. b) No. A conflict of interest exists in cases where we expect a certain amount of detachment from the arguer, and the arguer fails to be detached. We don’t expect advertisers to be detached, so there’s no possibility of a conflict of interest. See pp. 34–35. 3. a) Yes. The ad does not discuss the downsides of a Whatsit. We also have no idea of whether the alternatives to a Whatsit are better. And it’s not entirely clear what a Whatsit is. These are all pretty significant omissions, and they all serve to slant the argument. See pp. 36–38. 4. c) It’s impossible to tell. It’s certainly unlikely that any actual product could do all the things listed, but that’s not necessarily a case of distortion. Unless we know more about what a Whatsit is, there’s no reason to believe that the information given is actually manipulated or misstated. Overall, more information is needed to determine if this is a distortion (by grossly exaggerating what a Whatsit does) or a straightforward statement about a miraculous new technology. See pp. 38–40....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page9 / 12

Passage 4 1 c It’s impossible to tell The issue here is...

This preview shows document pages 9 - 11. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online