Page 1 of 1

#15 - Magazine article: The Environmental Commissioner's new

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:45 am
by mcdonom4
Hello!

I'm having some trouble understanding why (C) is the correct answer. The stimulus does talk negatively about the author of the proposal, the Environmental Commissioner, but then states "unfortunately we discovered that these proposals are virtually identical to those issued three months ago by Tarsque Inc." which makes me think that the author's objection doesn't just stem from the source, but from the content as well. Could you please explain this for me?

Thank you!

Re: #15 - Magazine article: The Environmental Commissioner's

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 4:21 pm
by Adam Tyson
Don't fall for the trap, mcdonom4! What do we know about the content of the proposals, other than that the two are virtually identical? The answer is nothing - we have no idea what they say. Our author does nothing to discredit the content of either the Commissioner's new proposals or those advanced previously by the company, but instead focuses entirely on who made the proposals. A big polluter made them (and the Commissioner later adopted them or copied them or, perhaps, came up with them on his own and the similarity is just a coincidence), so they must not be worth talking about! That's what this is all about. The rest, comparing the proposals to each other without any discussion of their substance, is just a distraction.

Ask yourself this question: what's wrong with the proposals? Answer based solely on the text, with no outside info. You can't say it's because the content is bad, because the text never tells us about the context. What else can you come up with?

If you come up with support for anything other than "a polluting company issued them", let us know! Otherwise, your answer will have to be C, and it should be clearer to you why that's so.

I hope that helps!

Re: #15 - Magazine article: The Environmental Commissioner's

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:03 pm
by mcdonom4
Ah, not the trap!!

Thank you so much Adam, that really clears it up. Especially if I ask what's actually wrong or what I actually know about the proposal. :-D

Re: #15 - Magazine article: The Environmental Commissioner's

PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:00 pm
by gen2871
source: Tsarque Inc.'s polluting has marked it as an environmental nightmare ---- attacking the source, right?

C. dismiss the proposal because of their source rather than because of their substance, the substance meaning content? Thank you!

Re: #15 - Magazine article: The Environmental Commissioner's

PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:35 pm
by Adam Tyson
Boom! You got it, gen! The problem is that the author attacked the author based on who they are and how they behave, rather than addressing the merits of the proposals. Good job!

Re: #15 - Magazine article: The Environmental Commissioner's

PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:47 am
by gen2871
Oh yeah!! Thank you, Adam!