Figorian Development Commission: Other nations have flagrantly developed wetlands at the expense of wildlife. We have conserved. Since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife and is necessary for growth, we should allow development. We have as much right to govern our own resources as countries that have already put their natural resources to commercial use.
Summarize Argument
The development commission argues in favour of development. This is because wetland development might not adversely harm wildlife, and development is necessary for economic growth.
Notable Assumptions
The development commission assumes that an action carrying a potential harm should still be undertaken if it carries a distinct benefit. In this case, the development commission assumes economically beneficial development should be undertaken despite possibly being harmful to wildlife.
A
National resources should be regulated by international agreement when wildlife is endangered.
The development commission definitely doesn’t think international agreements should regulate how they use their national resources.
B
The right of future generations to have wildlife preserved supersedes the economic needs of individual nations.
The development committee thinks development should go ahead. They don’t consider the rights of future generations.
C
Only when a reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development has been found should regulation be implemented to prevent further damage.
This tells us that until development proves harmful to wildlife, development should go ahead. That’s exactly what the development committee assumes when it says development might not harm wildlife.
D
Environmental regulation must aim at preventing any further environmental damage and cannot allow for the different degrees to which different nations have already harmed the environment.
We don’t care about some international comparative aspect. We care about whether or not development should go ahead in this situation.
E
It is imprudent to allow further depletion of natural resources.
The development committee doesn’t think development will necessary deplete natural resources.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that despite being high in cholesterol, shellfish isn’t necessarily bad for the heart. This is because shellfish is low in saturated fat, which affects blood cholesterol more than dietary cholesterol does.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes ones of two things. First, the author may assume that there’s some level of cholesterol that isn’t unhealthy, hence why shellfish aren’t heart-unhealthy despite being high in cholesterol and thus contributing to cholesterol. Second, the author may assume that shellfish in fact offset their blood cholesterol contribution through some other, unmentioned nutritional factor.
A
Meat and eggs are high in saturated fat.
We need to strengthen the claim shellfish isn’t unhealthy for the heart. We don’t care about meat and eggs.
B
Small quantities of foods high in saturated fat are not bad for the heart.
Shellfish isn’t high in saturated fat, so we don’t care.
C
Shellfish has less cholesterol per gram than meat, eggs, and poultry do.
Shellfish can be healthier than bacon and still be bad for the heart. We’re trying to strengthen the claim that shellfish actually isn’t bad for the heart.
D
Foods low in saturated fat promote low blood cholesterol.
While shellfish has dietary cholesterol, shellfish also has low saturated fat. This promotes low blood cholesterol, thus offsetting whatever contribution shellfish otherwise makes to blood cholesterol through dietary cholesterol. On the balance, shellfish are fine.
E
A serving of meat or poultry is typically larger than a serving of shellfish.
We don’t care about servings. We’re trying to strengthen the claim shellfish isn’t bad for the heart.
Summarize Argument
Using cotton fiber instead of nylon to make products like thread and rope would result in reduced environmental damage. This is because manufacturing cotton fiber does not release harmful gases into the environment, whereas manufacturing nylon does.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the process of manufacturing cotton fiber does not cause significant environmental damage, even though it does not release harmful gases. Producing cotton fiber could cause more environmental harm than producing nylon in ways other than gas emissions.
A
Even if the quantity of nitrous oxide released into the environment decreased, many environmental problems would remain unsolved.
This does not affect the argument. The author does not assume that replacing nylon with cotton fiber in thread and rope will solve all environmental problems. The persistence of many environmental issues despite this change does not weaken the argument.
B
Even if only some of the thread and rope that is currently being made from nylon were instead made from cotton fiber, some environmental damage would be avoided.
This strengthens the argument. It reinforces the idea that replacing nylon with cotton fiber in thread and rope would reduce environmental damage by suggesting that environmental benefits could be seen even if only some of the nylon is replaced with cotton fiber.
C
If cotton fiber replaced nylon in the production of thread and rope, there would be a resulting increase in the amount of nylon used in other manufactured products.
This weakens the argument by making it unclear whether replacing nylon with cotton fiber in thread and rope would have a net positive effect on the environment. If this switch increases nylon production and thus, nitrous oxide emissions, the environment may actually be worse off.
D
If the quantity of nylon manufactured annually decreased substantially, the volume of several pollutants that are released into the environment during its manufacture would be reduced.
This strengthens the argument. If nylon is replaced with cotton fiber in thread and rope, the levels of several other pollutants in addition to nitrous oxide would decrease. This reinforces the idea that the switch would reduce environmental damage.
E
If thread and rope continue to be made from nylon, the production of cotton fiber will not increase as rapidly as it would if all thread and rope were to be made from cotton fiber.
This does not affect the argument. (E) says the production of cotton fiber would increase faster if cotton fiber replaced nylon in thread and rope, which does not have any impact on the argument.