Summary
The author concludes that sound management of a resource requires that the price reflect any unintended harm to the ENVIRONMENT from use of that resource. Why? Because of the following:
Sound management of a resource requires that the price of the resource deter its misuse. This requires that the price reflect the resource’s externalities. A resource’s externalities includes the unintended harmful consequences to SOCIETY.
Sound management of a resource requires that the price of the resource deter its misuse. This requires that the price reflect the resource’s externalities. A resource’s externalities includes the unintended harmful consequences to SOCIETY.
Missing Connection
We know from the premises that sound management of a resource requires that a price reflect the unintended harmful consequences to SOCIETY from use of that resource. But does that imply that sound management of a resources requires the price to reflect unintended harm to the ENVIRONMENT from use of the resource? Not necessarily. What if harm to the environment is simply not part of harm to society? In that case, we don’t have to take into account harm to the environment in the resource’s price.
So to make this argument valid, we want to establish that in order to reflect unintended harm to society, a price must also reflect unintended harm to the environment.
So to make this argument valid, we want to establish that in order to reflect unintended harm to society, a price must also reflect unintended harm to the environment.
A
Whatever constitutes unintended harm to the environment also constitutes unintended harm to society.
If unintended harm to environment is part of unintended harm to society, then if a price reflects unintended harm to society, it must also reflect unintended harm to the environment. (Think about “harm to environment” as a subset completely contained within a larger set of “harm to society.”)
B
A resource’s externalities are always taken into account in setting the price of that resource.
Externalities are defined as unintended but harmful consequences to society. But we don’t know whether harm to the environment is part of harm to society. So (B) doesn’t make the argument valid; we’d still have no way of knowing whether sound management requires that a price reflect harm to the environment.
C
When setting a resource’s price, it is possible to forecast completely and accurately all of the effects of using that resource.
Whether it’s possible to accurately and completely predict the effects of using a resource when setting a price tells us nothing about whether harm to the environment is part of harm to society. Without a connection between environmental harm and societal harm, we have no way of knowing whether sound management requires that a price reflect harm to the environment.
D
If a resource is soundly managed, then its externalities are precisely assessed.
(D) establishes that sound management requires that externalities are precisely assessed. But does having a price reflect externalities imply having a price that reflects harm to the environment? We don’t know.
E
The price of a given resource is only one of several factors relevant to a decision about whether to use it.
Whether a resource should be used is separate from what’s required for sound management of a resource. In addition, (E) tells us nothing about the relationship between harm to the environment and harm to society.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
A Researcher hypothesizes that the details of frightening experiences tend to be better remembered than those of nonfrightening experiences. This is because the Researcher observed that increased adrenaline secretion (which occurs during frightening experiences) enhances the clarity of one’s memory in those moments.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that adrenaline secretion is one of (if not the primary) factors explaining why frightening experiences are more clearly remembered. The author also assumes that nonfighting experiences typically do not involve increased adrenaline levels.
A
Some experiences are so intense that an individual’s normal tendency to retain the details of them is reversed.
While this suggests that some intense (frightening) experiences may not be remembered clearly, it does not cast doubt on any of the reasoning between adrenaline and frightening experiences. That is what you need to weaken.
B
An individual will tend to remember most clearly those details of a situation that are relevant to the satisfaction of desires.
This is focused on *what* is remembered most clearly, not *why* it is remembered. That is the focus of this argument.
C
Highly pleasurable experiences are, like frightening experiences, accompanied by increased levels of adrenaline.
This weakens the argument because it showcases that experiences other than frightening ones are also accompanied by increased levels of adrenaline. This directly weakens the relationship between the premise and conclusion.
D
Frightening experiences make up only a small fraction of experiences in general.
This does not touch the reasoning in the argument. The frequency of frightening experiences has nothing to do with *why* they are remembered more clearly.
E
If an individual perceives a dangerous situation as nonfrightening, then the experience of that situation will not be accompanied by increased adrenaline secretions.
This discusses exceptions to the described phenomenon but does not challenge the claim that frightening experiences, when accompanied by adrenaline, are better remembered.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
A Geologist believes that Earth’s rate of rotation increased over the past decade due to a law of physics: as a spinning object’s radius decreases, its rate of rotation increases. The Geologist claims that the increase in the number and severity of earthquakes have caused the Earth’s tectonic plates to move toward the center of the Earth, causing the radius to decrease and the speed to subsequently increase.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the movement of tectonic plates toward the center of the Earth outweighs any other factors that could cause the Earth’s radius to increase.
A
In the beginning of the twentieth century, geologists observed an increase in number and severity of earthquakes, accompanied by a decrease of Earth’s radius.
This supports the argument by bolstering the idea that earthquakes are causing the Earth’s radius to decrease.
B
During the past decade, other geological events have counteracted the movements of the tectonic plates that occur immediately after earthquakes.
This undermines one of the geologists' key assumptions: that another force did not counteract the decrease in the Earth’s radius from earthquakes. If this is true, the entire support of the argument is weakened, and its conclusion is called into question.
C
Only skillful figure skaters succeed in twirling faster by bringing their arms closer to their sides.
This is completely unrelated to the argument. The info about the skater is just context to explain how the law of physics works.
D
Since the time of the ancient Egyptians, Earth’s rate of rotation has been known to fluctuate.
If anything, this strengthens the argument by giving credence to the idea that the Earth’s rate of rotation changes. But it certainly gives nothing to weaken the argument.
E
Increased volcanic activity over the last ten years suggests that the overall movement of the tectonic plates has increased.
This does not say whether the tectonic plates are moving inward or outward. If anything, it is easiest to assume that the tectonic plates are moving inward, which would strengthen the argument, not weaken it.
Summary
The author concludes that the city council does not have the objective of preserving the quality and availability of local rentals. Why? Because the following:
The city council recently passed a rent-control ordinance.
A recent study shows that rent control increases the price and lowers the quality and availability of rental units.
The city council recently passed a rent-control ordinance.
A recent study shows that rent control increases the price and lowers the quality and availability of rental units.
Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts something about the city council’s purpose (objective). But the premises don’t say anything that establishes whether the city council has or doesn’t have the purpose of preserving the quality and availability of local rentals.
Even though the study shows that rent control will hurt the quality and availability of rentals, there’s no evidence that the city council believed that the study was accurate or was even aware of the study. To make the argument valid, we want to establish that the passage of the rent-control ordinance, in light of the recent study, allows us infer the council knew the rent-control ordinance would harm the quality/availability of local rentals.
Even though the study shows that rent control will hurt the quality and availability of rentals, there’s no evidence that the city council believed that the study was accurate or was even aware of the study. To make the argument valid, we want to establish that the passage of the rent-control ordinance, in light of the recent study, allows us infer the council knew the rent-control ordinance would harm the quality/availability of local rentals.
A
The recent study of local rent-control ordinances was conducted by impartial investigators.
(A) helps establish the reliability of the study. But it doesn’t establish that the city council knew about the study’s results or believed its findings. So it doesn’t establish anything about the city council’s objectives.
B
Rent control is not an appropriate topic for consideration by the city council.
What is or is not appropriate for the city council to consider does not establish anything about the city council’s objectives.
C
The members of the city council who voted for rent control agree with the study’s conclusions about rent control.
(C) establishes that the people who voted for the ordinance were aware of and agreed with the study’s conclusions. That establishes that the council’s objective was not to preserve the quality and availability of local rentals. After all, they knew that the ordinance would decrease the quality/availability of rentals, yet still passed it.
D
Some members of the city council who voted for rent control stand to profit from rent control.
The fact some members will profit from rent control does not establish that they voted to pass rent control for self-interested reasons. These members might have thought the rent control would increase the quality and availability of rentals.
E
The city council sometimes acts in an arbitrary and irrational manner.
The fact the council sometimes acts in an arbitrary/irrational manner doesn’t establish that with respect to this ordiance, it acted in an arbitrary/irrational manner.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Professor Thomas says Professor York is too flamboyant and confrontational in the classroom. The author implicitly calls this claim into question by citing the fact that Thomas’s claim is self-serving. Thomas is not as good a presenter as York, so Thomas’s criticism of York may simply be a result of envy.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author attacks Professor Thomas’s motivation rather than the merits of his claim. Whether Thomas is venting his frustration or otherwise making comments due to envy or out of self-interest has nothing to do with the truth of whether Professor York is actually too flamboyant or confrontational in the classroom.
A
confuses the distinction between being overly confrontational and engaging students by entertaining them
The author doesn’t mistake being too confrontational with being entertaining. There’s no sign that the author thinks one type of behavior is the same as the other.
B
presupposes the point it is attempting to establish
(B) describes circular reasoning. The author’s conclusion, which is an implicit questioning of Professor Thomas’s claim about Professor York, does not restate a premise.
C
mistakes Professor Thomas’s characterization of a view for an endorsement of that view
The author does not think Thomas endorsed anything that York did or said.
D
attacks Professor Thomas personally rather than addressing Professor Thomas’s argument
The author attacked Professor Thomas’s motivations rather than addressing the substance of Professor’s Thomas’s argument. We care about whether York is too flamboyant and confrontational. Thomas’s motive is irrelevant.
E
rejects the possibility that Professor York is in fact too confrontational
There’s a difference between rejecting Thomas’s conclusion that York is too confrontational and criticizing Thomas’s argument in favor of that conclusion. The author does the latter.
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that restrictions on tobacco advertising have significantly reduced smoking among adults. This is based on a correlation observed between a decline in % of people who smoke and an increase in restrictions on tobacco advertising.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that the correlation between decline in tobacco smoking and increase in restrictions on tobacco advertising is explained by the restrictions causing the decline. This overlooks alternate explanations for the correlation. For example, maybe both the decline and the increase in restrictions are caused by something else.
A
fails to consider whether there have been any changes over the last two decades in the percentage of the teenage population who smoke
The conclusion concerns adults’ smoking. Whether teens have also seen a decline in smoking doesn’t affect adults’ smoking.
B
uses evidence that describes only a percentage of the adult population to reach a conclusion about the entire adult population
The conclusion is not about the entire adult population. The conclusion simply asserts a causal relationship between restrictions on advertising and a decline in smoking. This doesn’t mean every adult stopped smoking or that every adult is affected by restrictions on advertising.
C
reaches a conclusion about smoking among today’s adults based on statistics from ten or twenty years ago
The conclusion is not about “today’s adults.” It assert that restrictions have “had” a significant impact on adults’ smoking. Evidence of what has happened in the past is relevant to a claim about what effects restrictions have “had.”
D
neglects to take into account whether there have been restrictions on the advertising of other products besides tobacco in the past ten years
It’s not clear what impact restrictions of other products could have on smoking. The author did not assume that there weren’t restrictions on canned food, toys, or pencils, for example.
E
fails to consider the possibility that factors other than restrictions on advertising have contributed to the decline in smoking among adults
This possibility, if true, shows why the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises. If other factors could have contributed to the decline in smoking, then the correlation between restrictions and the decline does not have to be significantly due to those restrictions.