Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that lawmakers’ proposal to have milk labels list the artificial substances used in milk production should not be implemented. This is supported by some examples of unexpected information these labels would have to include, like fertilizer used to grow the cows’ feed. The examples imply that it would be too impractical to list all of the many artificial substances used in the many steps of milk production.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author counters the lawmakers’ proposal by pointing out unforeseen consequences of the proposal that would make implementing the proposal unreasonable.
A
proposing an alternative course of action for achieving the objectives of the proposal being argued against
The author doesn’t propose any alternatives, but is simply arguing against the feasibility of the entire proposal.
B
raising considerations in order to show that the proposal being argued against, if strictly implemented, would lead to absurd consequences
The author raises the consideration that a consequence of the proposal would be the absurd requirement to list substances like fertilizers and fungicides, which are technically part of the process of milk production.
C
using specific examples in order to show that an alternative to the proposal being argued against would better achieve the ends to which the original proposal was directed
The author doesn’t suggest any alternatives to the proposal being argued against, and only argues against the proposal on the grounds of the likely consequences of its implementation.
D
introducing a case analogous to the one under consideration to show that a general implementation of the proposal being argued against would be impossible
The author doesn’t make any analogies about a general case, and only argues that implementing the proposal would be highly unreasonable, not impossible.
E
questioning the motivation of those who made the proposal being argued against
The author doesn’t address the motivations of the lawmakers who made the proposal at any point, and only argues based on the likely consequences of the proposal itself.
Summary
Economist’s obsession with consumption as a measure of economic well-being prevents us from understanding true economic well-being. Why? Because we are not very satisfied by the fact that some things must be replaced.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
There is more to economic well-being than consumption.
A
economic well-being cannot be defined solely in terms of consumption
We should not define economic-well being solely in terms of consumption because we don’t get much satisfaction from replacing things we have consumed.
B
satisfaction is possible without consumption
We don’t know whether the author believes satisfaction is possible without consumption. Rather, the author is making an argument that there’s more to satisfaction than consumption.
C
valid measures of consumption cannot be devised
We don’t know whether the author believes that we cannot measure consumption accurately.
D
modern products are designed for early obsolescence
We don’t know whether the author believes modern products are designed to be discarded early.
E
satisfaction can provide an adequate quantitative measure of economic well-being
We don’t know whether the author believes satisfaction can accurately measure economic well-being. We only know that the author believes that there’s more to economic well-being than consumption.
A
presumes, without providing justification, that it would be impossible to reduce the likelihood of dangerous accidents for small cars
The gas station owner never assumes this. In fact, she’s not talking about the likelihood of getting into an accident at all. She just claims that, when they are in accidents, smaller cars are more likely to be seriously damaged and so they pose a risk to human lives.
B
concludes, on the basis of the claim that one means to an end is unacceptable, that the end should not be pursued
The owner concludes, on the basis of the claim that making cars smaller to make them more fuel efficient is unacceptable, that manufacturers shouldn’t pursue increased fuel efficiency at all. But perhaps there are other ways to increase fuel efficiency that are perfectly safe.
C
draws a conclusion about what should be done from premises all of which are about factual matters only
The gas station owner does draw a conclusion about what should be done, but her premises are not all about factual matters only. The premise “greater fuel efficiency is not worth the added risk to human lives” is subjective.
D
presupposes the truth of what it sets out to prove
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of circular reasoning, in which the conclusion merely restates a premise. The gas station owner doesn’t make this mistake; her premises and conclusion are distinct.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that increasing fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce air pollution
The gas station owner says that increasing fuel efficiency reduces air pollution, but she never assumes that it’s the only way to reduce air pollution.