#20 - Business owner: Although allowing coal mining in our
4 posts • Page 1 of 1
Please post your questions below!
Can someone give a detailed explanation as to why A is right? Mainly an explanation for why the claim that local businesses depend on beauty is considered "direct evidence?"
I share the same concern as the poster above. It seems to me that there is an unstated assumption - something along the lines of "heavy industrial activity rids a region of its natural beauty". The part of the claim about dependence on natural beauty is a necessary condition for the operation of many local businesses. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but in order for the claim to be "direct" evidence for the argument's sub-conclusion, doesn't this sub-conclusion have to invoke the notion of how natural beauty would be tarnished in the presence of industrial activity? Without this notion, there could be many reasons why coal mining would force the majority of local businesses to close, one of which being the more lucrative or stable business opportunity of starting your own coal mine.
Also, it seems to me that the same unstated assumption mentioned above, needed (in my opinion) to classify the claim as "direct" evidence for the argument's sub-conclusion, can analogously be used to classify the claim as "direct" evidence for the argument's main conclusion: if coal mining harms natural beauty, then it seems reasonable to expect that coal mining would reduce the number of jobs since many local businesses depend on natural beauty.
Would appreciate any thoughts on this.
Hi lsat12345 & N3rve_333,
This is a Method of Reasoning question which is part of the First Family (the Prove Family). In these questions the argument is true and we are using the truth of the argument to prove that one of the answer choices is true. Because of this we are not trying to judge the worth of any of the statements in the argument, we are accepting them as true and then we are looking for an answer choice that works because of what has been said in the argument.
For Answer A the stimulus can be broken down into 3 parts.
The Conclusion is the first sentence: Jobs will will decrease if coal mining is allowed.
The support for the conclusion is the second part of the second sentence: Many businesses would close (decreasing jobs) if coal mining is allowed.
The direct evidence for this is the first part of the second sentence: Many businesses need un-mined land (to preserve natural beauty). This is considered direct evidence because it specifically explains why the next part of that sentence relates to (and supports) the conclusion.
Hope that helps.
4 posts • Page 1 of 1