Columnist: The amount of acidic pollutants released into the air has decreased throughout the world over the last several decades. We can expect, then, an overall decrease in the negative environmental effects of acid rain, which is caused by these acidic pollutants.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that we should expect an overall decrease in the negative environmental effects of acid rain. This is because the amount of acidic pollutants released into the air has decreased over the last several decades, and negative environmental effects of acid rain are caused by these pollutants.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there haven’t been other changes over the last several decades that increase the negative environmental effects of acid rain.

A
Some ecosystems have developed sophisticated mechanisms that reduce the negative effects of increased levels of acids in the environment.
If anything, this might strengthen the argument by giving us reason to think at least some ecosystems have additional new protections that can reduce harm from acid rain.
B
The amount of acid-neutralizing buffers released into the air has decreased in recent years.
This indicates that certain things that protect against acid (acid-neutralizing buffers) have decreased, which would tend to increase harm from acid rain. This increase might offset the effect of decreased acidic pollutants.
C
The current decrease in acidic pollutants is expected to end soon, as more countries turn to coal for the generation of electricity.
This suggests that the decrease in acidic pollutants will end, which implies that we should not expect harm from acid rain to decrease in the near future. Once pollutant levels stop decreasing, we would expect harm from acid rain not to decrease.
D
The effects of acid rain are cumulative and largely independent of current acid rain levels.
This suggests that decreased amounts of pollutants in acid rain don’t significantly impact the harm caused by acid rain. Thus, we have less reason to think that decreased acidic pollutants would lead to less harm.
E
The soils of many ecosystems exposed to acid rain have been exhausted of minerals that help protect them from acid rain’s harmful effects.
This suggests that protections against acid rain have decreased, which would tend to increase harm from acid rain. This increased harm might offset the benefit of decreased acidic pollutants.

27 comments

Columnist: It is sometimes claimed that the only factors relevant to determining moral guilt or innocence are the intentions of the person performing an action. However, external circumstances often play a crucial role in our moral judgment of an action. For example, a cook at a restaurant who absentmindedly put an ingredient in the stew that is not usually in the stew would ordinarily be regarded as forgetful, not immoral. If, however, someone eating at the restaurant happens to be severely allergic to that ingredient, eats the stew, and dies, many people would judge the cook to be guilty of serious moral negligence.

Summary

The columnist argues that intentions are not the sole factor in determining moral guilt. For example, a cook who accidentally adds an ingredient would normally be considered forgetful. However, if someone were allergic to the ingredient and died, the cook would be judged guilty of serious negligence.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

Factors beyond one’s intentions (immediate control) can influence how one is judged for an action.

A
It is sometimes fair to judge the morality of others’ actions even without considering all of the circumstances under which those actions were performed.

This is anti-supported. The columnist sees the importance of looking at other factors when determining one’s morality.

B
We sometimes judge unfairly the morality of other people’s actions.

This is too strong to support. The stimulus does not mention what is fair/unfair, only that people are judged for things outside of their intentions

C
We should judge all negligent people to be equally morally blameworthy, regardless of the outcomes of their actions.

This is anti-supported. The stimulus suggests that people are judged differently in different situations.

D
People are sometimes held morally blameworthy as a result of circumstances some of which were outside their intentional control.

The example with the cook mirrors this answer choice. Whether one is allergic to an ingredient (outside of the cook’s control) is a major factor in how they are morally judged.

E
The intentions of the person performing an action are rarely a decisive factor in making moral judgments about that action.

This is too strong to support. The columnist suggests that there are factors other than one’s motives, not that their intentions are “rarely a decisive factor.”


5 comments

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-__YU-XmUl0


1 comment