Question

Excerpt from “Canada wants to ban single-use plastics. Would it make a difference?” by Vicky Stein:
“If the alternative to a piece of plastic cutlery is a piece of biodegradable plastic that costs more fossil fuels to produce and is equally difficult to dispose of, not to mention costs more for the business selling it, it doesn’t solve any of the problems we associate with petroleum-based plastics.”

Question
Which of the following best describes the fallacious reasoning in the author’s argument?

(1 point)
Responses

It assumes that because one alternative has problems, no alternatives will work.
It assumes that because one alternative has problems, no alternatives will work.

It clearly explains why all plastics should be banned.
It clearly explains why all plastics should be banned.

It focuses too much on the feelings of business owners.
It focuses too much on the feelings of business owners.

It gives too many statistics without explaining them.
It gives too many statistics without explaining them.

Answer 1

It assumes that because one alternative has problems, no alternatives will work.

(Explanation: the author generalizes from one problematic alternative to all possible alternatives — an overgeneralization/hasty generalization.)