4 ms·
But that's exactly how you presented their supposed argument: "Caltech students don't cheat because they're not representative of the general student population
by vacri 11y ago
But that's exactly how you presented their supposed argument: "Caltech students don't cheat because they're not representative of the general student population", with the vague assumption that Caltech students are more honour-bound.
Not being representative of a population doesn't give any information about the makeup of the subsample, unless you have more information to add.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> But that's exactly how you presented their supposed argument: "Caltech students don't cheat because they're not representative of the general student population" No, its not, which is why you had to present a "quote" that isn't to advance that story. I presented how they would reject an argument from the general population, not positive argument for the absence of cheating at Caltech.
- vacri 11y agoWhat are you talking about? You presented the argument as a potential rebuttal to the claim that students cheat. It's inherently implied that it's an argument for the absence of cheating at Caltech... otherwise it wouldn't be a rebuttal at all, and instead is a non-sequitur fallacy. Yes, if you strip away the context of the literal words you said, you're correct. But in context, you're not.