Summary
The author concludes that our side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise with the opposition. Why? Because of the following:
If the opposition responds positively, a compromise will be reached.
If the opposition does not respond positively, our side will benefit.
If the opposition responds positively, a compromise will be reached.
If the opposition does not respond positively, our side will benefit.
Missing Connection
Think about the options if we show a desire to compromise — either the opposition will respond positively, or they won’t. We know from the second premise that in the case they won’t, our side will benefit. But in the case that they do respond positively...all we can conclude is that a compromise will be reached.
Is a compromise to our side’s benefit? We don’t know. So to make the argument valid — to show that no matter how the opposition responds, our side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise — we want to establish that if a compromise is reached, our side will benefit.
Is a compromise to our side’s benefit? We don’t know. So to make the argument valid — to show that no matter how the opposition responds, our side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise — we want to establish that if a compromise is reached, our side will benefit.
A
The political leader’s side has a desire to compromise with the opposition.
(A) doesn’t establish that a compromise is to our side’s benefit. So it’s possible that if the opposition responds positively, we won’t necessarily benefit.
B
The opposition is rarely willing to compromise with the political leader’s side.
(B) doesn’t establish that a compromise is to our side’s benefit. So it’s possible that if the opposition responds positively, we won’t necessarily benefit.
C
The political leader’s side will benefit if a compromise is reached.
(C) allows us to infer that if the opposition responds positively, our side will benefit. If we add (C) to the premises, no matter whether the opposition responds positively or negatively, our side benefits. This establishes that our side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise.
D
The opposition would benefit from showing a desire to compromise.
(D) doesn’t establish that a compromise is to our side’s benefit. So it’s possible that if the opposition responds positively, we won’t necessarily benefit.
E
The opposition will compromise if the political leader’s side shows a desire to compromise.
(E) doesn’t establish that a compromise is to our side’s benefit. So it’s possible that if the opposition responds positively, we won’t necessarily benefit.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the only effective way to reduce significantly the incidence of most cancers/birth defects is to stop industries that are known to produce certain organic pollutants that have been linked to those conditions. The author supports this conclusion by asserting that most cancers/birth defects are incurable, so we need to aim at preventing them. In addition, industries that produce pollutants are not likely to comply with strict environmental regulations.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes there’s no other significant cause of cancer and birth defects besides the pollutants. This overlooks the possibility that something else, such as people’s diets, might cause a significant number of cancers/birth defects. If so, then we might be able to reduce significantly the incidence of those conditions without stopping the industries.
A
fails to consider the possibility that a significant number of occurrences of cancer and birth defects may be caused by preventable factors other than industrial pollutants
If this possibility is true, then we might be able to significantly reduce cancers/birth defects through means that target those other factors. We wouldn’t necessarily have to stop the industries that produce organic pollutants.
B
does not consider the possibility that pollutants can cause harm to nonhuman species as well as to human beings
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument. The author’s concerned about harm to humans; if the pollutants also hurt nonhumans, the author could find that additional reason we need to stop the industries that make those pollutants.
C
takes for granted that certain effects can be produced independently by several different causes
The author doesn’t take this for granted. The author OVERLOOKS the possibility that certain effects (cancer/birth defects) can be produced by several different factors.
D
fails to consider whether industries may voluntarily decrease their output of pollutants
The author does consider this — she states as a premise that the industries are unlikely to comply adequately with regulations.
E
fails to consider the possibility that chemicals now classified as pollutants have some beneficial effects not yet discovered
The author’s conclusion doesn’t recommend stopping use of the pollutants. All the conclusion says is that the only way to significantly reduce cancers/birth defects is to halt the industries. Whether there are benefits to the pollutants doesn’t affect the author’s reasoning.
Summary
If nations have little interaction with one another, then those nations will have little understanding of each other’s needs and problems. Both sympathy and justice depend on the understanding of other’s needs and problems.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
It follows that nations that have little interaction with one another will likely not treat each other with sympathy and justice.
A
nations that have knowledge of one another’s needs and problems will treat each other with sympathy and justice
We don’t know what results from a nation understanding another nation’s needs and problems. Satisfaction of a necessary condition does not guarantee satisfaction of a sufficient condition.
B
without some interaction, nations are bound to find it difficult to extend sympathy and justice to one another
The stimulus fails the necessary condition of understanding among nations, therefore the sufficient condition of extending sympathy and justice must also fail.
C
almost all problems between nations stem from lack of sympathy and justice
We don’t know what causes any nation’s problems. We only know what results when nations don’t understand one another’s needs and problems.
D
there is no way to eliminate conflict among nations
We don’t know is there’s absolutely no way to eliminate conflict between nations. We don’t even know if these nations are in conflict with one another.
E
only nations that have some interaction with one another have knowledge of one another’s needs and problems
We don’t know whether only nations that interact with one another are also the only nations that understand one another. From the stimulus, we only know what results from nations having little interaction with other nations.