Summarize Argument
Using cotton fiber instead of nylon to make products like thread and rope would result in reduced environmental damage. This is because manufacturing cotton fiber does not release harmful gases into the environment, whereas manufacturing nylon does.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the process of manufacturing cotton fiber does not cause significant environmental damage, even though it does not release harmful gases. Producing cotton fiber could cause more environmental harm than producing nylon in ways other than gas emissions.
A
Even if the quantity of nitrous oxide released into the environment decreased, many environmental problems would remain unsolved.
This does not affect the argument. The author does not assume that replacing nylon with cotton fiber in thread and rope will solve all environmental problems. The persistence of many environmental issues despite this change does not weaken the argument.
B
Even if only some of the thread and rope that is currently being made from nylon were instead made from cotton fiber, some environmental damage would be avoided.
This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the idea that replacing nylon with cotton fiber in thread and rope would reduce environmental damage by suggesting that environmental benefits could be seen even if only some of the nylon is replaced with cotton fiber.
C
If cotton fiber replaced nylon in the production of thread and rope, there would be a resulting increase in the amount of nylon used in other manufactured products.
This weakens the argument by making it unclear whether replacing nylon with cotton fiber in thread and rope would have a net positive effect on the environment. If this switch increases nylon production and thus, nitrous oxide emissions, the environment may actually be worse off.
D
If the quantity of nylon manufactured annually decreased substantially, the volume of several pollutants that are released into the environment during its manufacture would be reduced.
This strengthens the argument. If nylon is replaced with cotton fiber in thread and rope, the levels of several other pollutants in addition to nitrous oxide would decrease. This reinforces the idea that the switch would reduce environmental damage.
E
If thread and rope continue to be made from nylon, the production of cotton fiber will not increase as rapidly as it would if all thread and rope were to be made from cotton fiber.
This does not affect the argument. (E) says the production of cotton fiber would increase faster if cotton fiber replaced nylon in thread and rope, which does not have any impact on the argument.
Susan: But the major part of that increase occurred in the first 6 months after that legislation was enacted, right after your city’s free neighborhood health clinics opened, and before the vaccination campaign really got going.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Susan implicitly concludes that Yuriko’s argument does not support the conclusion that her city’s campaign to encourage child vaccination should be imitated by Susan’s city. Susan points out that the increase in vaccination in Yuriko’s city mostly preceded the start of the campaign, and more directly followed the opening of free health clinics. This implies that the clinics really caused the increase.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Susan counters Yuriko’s support for the campaign by introducing additional evidence to undermine Yuriko’s assumptions about cause and effect. With evidence about the timing of the rise in vaccination relative to the start of the campaign and the clinics opening, Susan points out a more plausible alternative cause for the rise in vaccination.
A
She denies Yuriko’s assumption that Susan’s city wants to increase the vaccination rate for children.
Susan doesn’t make any assertions about whether or not her city wants to increase the vaccination rate.
B
She cites facts that tend to weaken the force of the evidence with which Yuriko supports her recommendation.
Susan cites the fact that free clinics opened directly before the major rise in vaccination rate, whereas the campaign only started after that rise. This weakens the evidence for Yuriko’s claim that the increase resulted from the campaign.
C
She introduces evidence to show that the campaign Yuriko advocates is only effective for a short period of time.
Susan doesn’t concede that the campaign was effective at all in her argument, for any amount of time.
D
She advances the claim that a campaign such as Yuriko recommends is not necessary because most parents already choose to have their children vaccinated.
Susan doesn’t argue that any campaign for increased vaccination is unnecessary, only that the particular campaign that Yuriko argues Susan’s city should imitate may not be effective.
E
She presents evidence to suggest that vaccination campaigns are usually ineffective.
Susan doesn’t make any claims against the effectiveness of vaccination campaigns in general, only the specific campaign that Yuriko argues Susan’s city should imitate.