Summary
Some environmentalists don't think it's a great idea to exploit the environment, because when the environment is all used up no one can economically benefit from it. Many environmentalists don’t think it's a great idea to exploit the environment because, economics aside, the environment has inherent value.
Notable Valid Inferences
Environmentalists take different approaches to rationalizing why environmental exploitation is bad. Some focus on economic costs/benefits, while others don’t.
A
It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.
This could be false. We know this is the opinion of some environmentalists—that doesn’t mean it’s true.
B
Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
This must be true. The stimulus says many environmentalists think environmental exploitation is bad because nature has inherent value, and they don’t consider the economic benefits/costs in their justification. We know these people exist, which means (B) must be true.
C
Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
This could be false. We don’t anything about what “most” environmentalists think—we only know about “some” and “many”.
D
Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
This could be false. While we know many environmentalists offer a noneconomic justification against environmental exploitation, we don’t know that this is their only justification—it could be one of many.
E
Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
This could be false. We know this is the opinion of some environmentalists—that doesn’t mean it’s true.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The local citizen claims that the measure to ban spectators from the courtroom was inconsistent with the stated reasoning for taking the measure. Since the court stirred up public interest with requests for help, the citizen claims that it’s hypocritical for public interest to be invoked as the reason for restricting courtroom attendance.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is an “equivocation fallacy”, meaning that the local citizen uses different meanings of a word interchangeably in an invalid way. In the argument’s premises, the term “public interest” refers to the fact that the public cared about the case. Later, however, the term refers to what would be good for the public. There’s no contradiction because those two concepts are very different.
A
generalizes from an atypical case
The citizen never generalized. The argument was only concerned with this one particular turn of events.
B
trades on an ambiguity with respect to the term “public interest”
This describes the way the term “public interest” was treated as though it referred to the same concept even though the term’s meaning shifted throughout the argument.
C
overlooks the fact that the judge might not be the one who made the plea to the public for help
The central flaw with the argument was the inconsistent use of a term. No matter who specifically made the plea for help, the supposed contraction could still stand.
D
attempts to support its conclusion by making sensationalistic appeals
The citizen refers to events that actually happened, so the premises weren’t merely sensationalistic appeals. Employing rhetoric isn’t a logical flaw in and of itself.
E
presumes that the public’s right to know is obviously more important than the defendant’s right to a fair trial
This is irrelevant. Actions could still be inconsistent regardless of what the defendant’s rights are. Also, there’s no reason to believe that allowing spectators would infringe on the defendant's rights.
Summary
If one effect of a genetic mutation contributes substantially to survival of a species, that mutation will be favored in natural selection. In addition, if a mutation is favored in natural selection, that means at least one effect of that mutation contributes substantially to survival of a species.
The rules above are subject to one exception — when the effect of traits that are carried along with the genetic mutation are so negative that they cancel out the benefits of a mutation, the mutation won’t be favored.
The rules above are subject to one exception — when the effect of traits that are carried along with the genetic mutation are so negative that they cancel out the benefits of a mutation, the mutation won’t be favored.
Notable Valid Inferences
There’s no clear inference to draw. We just need to understand the complicated rules in the stimulus accurately.
A
A species possesses a trait whose effects are all neutral for the survival of that species.
Could be true. A species can have a trait with only neutral effects. This just implies the trait won’t be favored by natural selection.
B
All the effects of some genetic mutations contribute substantially to the survival of a species.
Could be true. There could be some mutations that only do very helpful things for survival. These mutations will be favored.
C
A species possesses a trait that reduces the species’ survival potential.
Could be true. A species can have a trait that reduces survival potential. This trait won’t be favored.
D
A genetic mutation that carries along several negative traits is favored in natural selection.
Could be true. A genetic mutation can carry several negative traits. And that mutation can still be favored as long as the negative traits aren’t so negative as to outweigh the benefits of the mutation.
E
A genetic mutation whose effects are all neutral to a species is favored in natural selection.
Must be false. If the effects are all neutral, then the mutation won’t be favored. One requirement to be favored is that one effect contributes substantially to survival.