Over the last five years, every new major alternative-energy initiative that initially was promised government funding has since seen that funding severely curtailed. In no such case has the government come even close to providing the level of funds initially earmarked for these projects. Since large corporations have made it a point to discourage alternative-energy projects, it is likely that the corporations’ actions influenced the government’s funding decisions.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that large corporations’ actions to discourage alternative-energy projects have likely influenced the government’s decisions to curtail funding of alternative-energy projects. This is based on the fact that large corporations have made a point to discourage alternative-energy projects.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s no other explanation for the government’s decisions to curtail funding for the alternative-energy projects besides large corporations’ actions.

A
For the past two decades, most alternative-energy initiatives have received little or no government funding.
This doesn’t shed light on the cause of the lack of government funding. We already know that major alternative-energy intiatives have had government funding curtailed. The issue is whether this is due to large corporations’ actions.
B
The funding initially earmarked for a government project is always subject to change, given the mechanisms by which the political process operates.
But, is the decision to cut funding to these projects a result of corporations’ actions, or something else? (B) doesn’t help to eliminate other explanations or to affirm the author’s explanation.
C
The only research projects whose government funding has been severely curtailed are those that large corporations have made it a point to discourage.
This eliminates an alternate explanation that the government was simply cutting funding across the board. (C) establishes a closer connection between having funding cut and corporations’ discouragement.
D
Some projects encouraged by large corporations have seen their funding severely curtailed over the last five years.
The author never suggested that the government does whatever corporations want. Some projects encouraged by corporations may have had funding cut. That doesn’t impact whether other projects had funding cut because corporations discouraged those projects.
E
All large corporations have made it a point to discourage some forms of research.
We already know large corporations have discouraged alternative-energy projects. The issue is whether the government’s decision to cut funding to those projects results from the corporations’ actions. (E) doesn’t help affirm that explanation or eliminate other explanations.

7 comments

After an oil spill, rehabilitation centers were set up to save sea otters by removing oil from them. The effort was not worthwhile, however, since 357 affected live otters and 900 that had died were counted, but only 222 affected otters, or 18 percent of those counted, were successfully rehabilitated and survived. Further, the percentage of all those affected that were successfully rehabilitated was much lower still, because only a fifth of the otters that died immediately were ever found.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that the effort to save sea otters by removing oil from them wasn’t worthwhile. He supports this by saying that only 18% of counted otters were successfully rehabilitated and that this percentage is actually even lower because only a fifth of the otters that died immediately were ever found.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that a low success rate means that the rehabilitation effort wasn’t worthwhile, ignoring the possibility that a small number of rehabilitated otters might have significant positive ecological value or long-term benefits.

He also assumes that the reported number of otters is accurate, without addressing the possibility that the dead otters that were never found can’t be accurately counted. (?)

Note: We’re looking for the answer choice that “calls into question evidence offered in support of the conclusion.”

A
Do sea otters of species other than those represented among the otters counted exist in areas that were not affected by the oil spill?

The author’s argument only addresses rehabilitation efforts among the otter population that was affected by the oil spill. Surely other otter species exist in other places, but their existence doesn’t call into question the evidence offered in support of the author’s conclusion.

B
How is it possible to estimate, of the sea otters that died, how many were not found?

This calls into question the author’s evidence. He claims that the percentage of successfully rehabilitated otters is much lower than 18% because only a fifth of the dead otters were ever found. But how can he know that this number is accurate if the otters were never found?

C
Did the process of capturing sea otters unavoidably involve trapping and releasing some otters that were not affected by the spill?

Like (A), the author’s argument is only concerned with those otters that were affected by the spill. The effects of the rehabilitation process on other otters doesn’t call into question his evidence, which only addresses affected otters.

D
Were other species of wildlife besides sea otters negatively affected by the oil spill?

The author’s evidence only addresses sea otters that were affected by the oil spill. Whether other species of wildlife were also affected is irrelevant, since the rehabilitation efforts in question only involved sea otters.

E
What was the eventual cost, per otter rehabilitated, of the rehabilitation operation?

The author doesn’t mention cost as a factor in his assessment of whether the rehabilitation effort was worthwhile. (E) thus doesn’t call into question the author’s evidence, which only addresses the percentage of otters that were rehabilitated.


35 comments

Although Jaaks is a respected historian, her negative review of Yancey’s new book on the history of coastal fisheries in the region rests on a mistake. Jaaks’s review argues that the book inaccurately portrays the lives of fishery workers. However, Yancey used the same research methods in this book as in her other histories, which have been very popular. This book is also very popular in local bookstores.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that Jaaks’ negative review of Yancey’s new book is mistaken. He supports this by saying that Jaaks claims the book misrepresents fishery workers, but Yancey used the same research methods in this book as in her other books. He also notes that Yancey’s new book and her previous books are all very popular.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author makes two key assumptions in his argument.

(1) He assumes that since Yancey used the same research methods in this book as in her previous books, she must not be misrepresenting fishery workers. He ignores the possibility that Yancey might just use bad research methods in all her books.

(2) He also assumes that because Yancey’s books are popular, they’re also factually accurate. However, a book’s popularity is not necessarily a reflection of its accuracy.

A
relies on the word of a scholar who is unqualified in the area in question
The author’s argument doesn't rely on the word of a scholar at all. He’s arguing against Jaaks, who is a scholar, but he doesn’t rely on any other scholar to support his argument.
B
attacks the person making the claim at issue rather than addressing the claim
This is the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where an author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. The author doesn't make this mistake. He attacks Jaaks’ argument, not Jaaks herself.
C
takes for granted that the popularity of a book is evidence of its accuracy
The author assumes that because Yancey’s books are all popular, her books and research methods must be accurate. But a book’s popularity does not necessarily reflect its factual accuracy.
D
bases a general conclusion on a sample that is likely to be unrepresentative
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of hasty generalization. The author doesn't make this mistake. He draws a specific conclusion about Jaak’s review.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that the methods used by Yancey are the only methods that would produce accurate results
The author assumes that Yancey’s methods produce accurate results, but he never assumes that hers are the only methods that would produce accurate results.

5 comments