In each of the following examples, does the parallel argument succeed in refuting the original argument? Why or why not? Consider the three possible responses listed above. If the original argument is refuted, is there some simple way to fix it so that it cannot be refuted by this parallel reasoning? If so, how? (You might try to add a premise whose analogue would be false in the parallel argument.)
1. Chris: The United States is wealthy, so its citizens are wealthy as well.
PAT: That's just like arguing that a building is expensive, so the nails in its walls are expensive as well.
2. Chauvinist: Since women are the only people who can bear children, they should bear children.
FEMINIST: That's like arguing that, if I am the only person who can wiggle my own ears, then I should wiggle my ears.
3. Newt: Orphanages are fine places, as the movie Boys Town shows.
critic: That's just like saying that $\mathrm{Oz}$ is a fine place, as The Wizard of $\mathrm{Oz}$ shows.
4. A YounG CHILd at 6:00 am: It's morning. Morning is the time to wake up. So it's time to wake up.
The Child's Sleepy PARENt: That's just like arguing that it's daytime, and daytime is the time to eat lunch, so it's time to eat lunch.
5. MARK: You shouldn't walk on that grass, because if everybody did that, the grass would die.
Boв: That's just like arguing that I shouldn't go to this movie right now, because if everybody did that, the theater would be packed like a can of sardines.
6. THOMAs: Everything in the world has a cause, so the world itself must have a cause.
Tony: That's just like arguing that every leg in the relay race was run by a single runner, so the entire race itself must have been run by a single runner.
7. HAwк: Nuclear deterrence must work, because we have never had a nuclear exchange as long as we have maintained nuclear deterrence.
Dove: That's just like arguing that hanging garlic by the front door must keep thieves away, because I put garlic there and my house has never been robbed.
8. Liberal: We ought to provide condoms for high school students, because they are going to have sex anyway.
Conservative: That's just like arguing that we should provide high school students with guns, because they are going to use guns anyway.
9. Scientist: My initial steps toward human cloning, no matter how controversial, are important because they bring the debate out into the public.
OPPONENT: That's just like arguing that we should start a fire in a house in order to bring the debate about getting a new fire engine out into the public. (paraphrased from an actual interview on National Public Radio)
10. King: "In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But can this assertion be logically made? Isn't this like condemning the robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?" (from Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail")
11. A: He owns a red car, so he owns a car.
B: That's just like arguing that he owns a toy duck, so he owns a duck.
12. A: He is holding a baby girl, so he is holding a baby.
B: That's just like arguing that he is driving a fire truck, so he is driving a fire.