Substantial economic growth must be preceded by technological innovations that expanding industries incorporate into their production or distribution procedures. Since a worldwide ban on the use of fossil fuels would surely produce many technological innovations, it is obvious that such a ban would be followed by an economic boom rather than by the economic depression forecast by the critics of such a ban.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a ban on fossil fuels would be followed by substantial economic growth. This is based on the fact that substantial economic growth requires the occurrence of technological innovations. And, a ban on fossil fuels would produce many technological innovations.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author confuses a sufficient condition with a necessary condition. Technological innovations are necessary for substantial economic growth (the word “must” indicates necessity). But the author thinks that having technological innovations will be sufficient for substantial economic growth. This is why the author thinks the ban on fossil fuels will be followed by an economic boom.

A
The argument assumes the truth of the conclusion for which it purports to be providing evidence.
(A) describes circular reasoning. The conclusion is not a restatement of one of the premises.
B
The argument attempts to establish the falsehood of a proposition by criticizing the reasoning of those who assert its truth.
The author doesn’t criticize someone else’s reasoning.
C
The argument attempts to establish a conclusion on the basis of stronger evidence than the conclusion requires.
There’s nothing flawed about establishing a conclusion using evidence stronger than needed. Anyway, (C) doesn’t happen because the evidence here isn’t enough to prove the conclusion.
D
The argument confuses a necessary condition for a phenomenon with a sufficient condition for that phenomenon.
The argument confuses a necessary condition (tech innovations) for a phenomenon (substantial economic growth) with a sufficient condition for that phenomenon. This is flawed because we aren’t told tech innovations are enough to guarantee substantial economic growth.
E
The argument presumes, without providing warrant, that because certain conditions only sometimes precede a certain phenomenon, these conditions always bring about the phenomenon.
The conclusion is based on the fact that any time there’s substantial economic growth, there must be tech innovations that preceded. This is a claim that sub. economic growth requires tech innovations. Not a claim that tech innovations “only sometimes” happen before growth.

20 comments

Winston: The rules for awarding Nobel Prizes stipulate that no more than three people can share the same prize. Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines are generally given in recognition of particular scientific results, however, and many important results are the work of four or more scientists.

Sanjay: Those rules also stipulate that prize winners must be living, but some highly influential scientists died before their work was fully appreciated.

Speaker 1 Summary

Winston tells us that the rules for awarding Nobel Prizes do not allow more than three people to share the same prize. Prizes in scientific disciplines are typically given for scientific results, which often involve the work of more than three scientists. This suggests that some scientists who worked on prize-winning work might not receive a Nobel Prize.

Speaker 2 Summary

Sanjay tells us that the Nobel Prize rules also require winners to be living. Some influential scientists died before their work was fully appreciated. This suggests that some dead scientists might not be able to win a Nobel Prize, even if their work ends up worthy of a prize.

Objective

We’re looking for a point of agreement. The speakers agree that Nobel Prize rules may end up preventing some scientists who would deserve a prize from winning one.

A
the rules that govern the awarding of Nobel Prizes should be changed so that prizes can be awarded to deceased persons

Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Nobody indicates what should or should not be the case. The speakers simply describe aspects of Nobel Prize rules without suggesting those aspects are good or bad.

B
the rules that govern the awarding of Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines should be different from the rules for other Nobel Prizes

Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Nobody indicates what should or should not be the case. The speakers simply describe aspects of Nobel Prize rules without suggesting those aspects are good or bad.

C
Nobel Prizes in scientific disciplines should not be given in recognition of particular scientific results

Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Nobody indicates what should or should not be the case. The speakers simply describe aspects of Nobel Prize rules without suggesting those aspects are good or bad.

D
the evaluation of individual achievement in science is a highly subjective matter

Neither speaker expresses an opinion. Nobody discusses the subjectivity of evaluating individual achievement in science. They simply describe aspects of Nobel Prize rules and how they might prevent some scientists from obtaining a prize.

E
Nobel Prizes are inaccurate indicators of scientists’ contributions to their disciplines

This is a point of agreement. Winston’s comments indicate some scientists might not get a prize simply because of the size of their teams. Sanjay’s comments indicate some might not get a prize because they died. This means prizes might not go to people who should get one.


43 comments