The following is a collection of argumentation patterns that I find weak. These are particularly common in my own research areas. --- P1. X has Quality 1 (Q1) P2. X has Quality 2 (Q2) P3. Therefore Q2 is necessary for Q1 _(unearned: from co-instantiation, not constitution)_ P4. Y lacks Q2. C. Therefore Y lacks Q1. I call this *paradigm-case chauvinism*. If you read philosophical work on AI, this shows up all the time. A variant is where Q2 is a novel concept the author defines that is just as ambiguous as Q1. --- P1: Our existing system (social, technical, etc.) has some deficiency P2: Recent work has proposed applying a new technology (AI) to improve the system C: The new technology will compound the deficiency. Our attention is better spent remedying the existing system.