Summary
Wasting natural resources is wrong.
Burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators is a waste of natural resources.
Recycling trash wastes fewer resources than burning it in incinerators.
If an incinerator is built, less trash will be recycled.
The city shouldn’t build an incinerator.
Burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators is a waste of natural resources.
Recycling trash wastes fewer resources than burning it in incinerators.
If an incinerator is built, less trash will be recycled.
The city shouldn’t build an incinerator.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
The city should not take an action that is wrong.
The city should not take an action that will inhibit a reduction in resource waste.
If the city is burning huge amounts of trash in an incinerator, the city is wasting resources.
The city should not take an action that will inhibit a reduction in resource waste.
If the city is burning huge amounts of trash in an incinerator, the city is wasting resources.
A
All of the city’s trash that is not recycled goes into incinerators.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest that the only disposal options are recycling and incineration. It’s true that building an incinerator leads to less recycling, but there might also be more methods! Maybe some trash goes landfills and the rest is either burnt or recycled.
B
By recycling more trash, the city can stop wasting resources entirely.
Unsupported. “Recycling more trash” doesn’t necessarily mean recycling all trash—huge amounts could still be burnt! Also, recycling might still waste resources, albeit fewer. Finally, the city might be wasting resources in other ways, too, and recycling trash wouldn’t stop that.
C
The most effective way to conserve resources is to recycle trash.
Unsupported. We know that recycling trash helps conserve resources, but we don’t know that this is the most effective way to do so.
D
If the city is to avoid wasting resources, huge amounts of trash cannot be burned in any city incinerator.
Very strongly supported. Burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators wastes resources, so as long as the city is doing that, it is wasting resources. If the city were to avoid wasting resources, it would need to stop burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators!
E
If the city does not burn trash, it will not waste resources.
Unsupported. The city might be wasting resources in other ways! Maybe the city has a policy of leaving lights on in government buildings, or uses wasteful water distribution plans, or engages in any number of other wasteful practices!
Nordecki: If pay is the issue, I must disagree. The average annual salary of the striking workers at Ergon Foods is over $29,000.
Speaker 1 Summary
Goswami supports the striking workers at Ergon Foods. This is because she thinks the amount they are paid (most make less than $20,000 per year) is too low.
Speaker 2 Summary
Nordecki concludes that if the strike is about pay, he does not support the strike. This is because the average annual salary of the striking workers is above $29,000.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether the striking workers are underpaid. Goswami thinks they are. Nordecki thinks they aren’t.
A
The average annual salary at Ergon Foods is over $29,000.
Goswami doesn’t express an opinion. She says most earn less than $20,000, but that doesn’t allow us to infer what she believes about the average salary of Ergon Foods workers. The average could be higher than $29,000 or lower, even if most earn less than $20,000.
B
Pay is the primary issue over which the workers are striking at Ergon Foods.
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Although you might think the workers are striking over pay, neither speaker describes the cause of the strike.
C
It is reasonable to support striking workers who are underpaid.
Not a point of disagreement. Nordecki believes the Ergon workers are not underpaid. But we don’t know whether he would support their strike if they were underpaid. You might think he implicitly supports strikes from underpaid workers, in which case he agrees with Goswami.
D
The striking workers at Ergon Foods are underpaid.
This is a point of disagreement. Goswami believes they are underpaid. We can infer that Nordecki does not, because he says that he disagrees with the strike if pay is the issue underlying the strike.
E
It was unreasonable for the workers at Ergon Foods to go on strike.
Nordecki doesn’t express an opinion. He disagrees with the strike if it is based on pay. But it might be based on a different reason, in which case we don’t know whether Nordecki might support the strike.