- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat May 20, 2017 12:08 pm
#35192
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
Here, the columnist argues against a proposal to ban the practice of stringing cable TV lines from the
same poles that carry electric power lines. The move to ban the practice comes from wildlife activists
who worry that the addition of the cable TV lines makes it easier for animals to climb near the power
lines. So, even though the cable TV lines are not inherently dangerous, their presence near power
lines puts animals at greater risk of electrocution. As we could predict based on the columnist’s use
of the “some people say…” rhetorical device, the columnist does not think that the practice should
be banned, arguing that “some animals are electrocuted by power lines even where cable TV lines
are all underground.”
This is a Flaw question. The columnist’s position essentially was that a ban on placing cable TV
lines near power lines is not appropriate since animals are electrocuted by power lines even when
cable TV lines are not present. However, this argument misses the mark. The focus of the activist’s
proposal is to remove the additional risk of electrocution created by having the cable TV lines strung
with the power lines. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will describe the columnist’s
failure to address this risk.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice describes a flaw in conditional reasoning. However, the
argument was not conditional.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, because it restates the columnist’s failure
to consider that the purpose of the activists’ proposal was to eliminate the additional risk created
by stringing the cable TV lines near the power lines, not to eliminate entirely the risk of animal
electrocution posed by power lines.
Answer choice (C): There is no indication in the stimulus that the activists’ proposal would have any
advantageous effect in addition to removing the increased risk of electrocution to animals.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice describes a Source argument. However, the columnist did
not address the wildlife activists’ character or motives.
Answer choice (E): Here, the answer choice describes rejecting the activists’ proposal to reduce
the threat of electrocution to animals based on evidence that there exists some other effective plan
to reduce the threat. However, the columnist neither indicated that the activists’ proposal would be
effective, nor rejected it merely in favor of some other effective proposal. Instead, the columnist
appeared to act as if there was no need for a proposal of that type because animals are killed by
power lines even when cable TV lines are not strung nearby.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
Here, the columnist argues against a proposal to ban the practice of stringing cable TV lines from the
same poles that carry electric power lines. The move to ban the practice comes from wildlife activists
who worry that the addition of the cable TV lines makes it easier for animals to climb near the power
lines. So, even though the cable TV lines are not inherently dangerous, their presence near power
lines puts animals at greater risk of electrocution. As we could predict based on the columnist’s use
of the “some people say…” rhetorical device, the columnist does not think that the practice should
be banned, arguing that “some animals are electrocuted by power lines even where cable TV lines
are all underground.”
This is a Flaw question. The columnist’s position essentially was that a ban on placing cable TV
lines near power lines is not appropriate since animals are electrocuted by power lines even when
cable TV lines are not present. However, this argument misses the mark. The focus of the activist’s
proposal is to remove the additional risk of electrocution created by having the cable TV lines strung
with the power lines. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will describe the columnist’s
failure to address this risk.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice describes a flaw in conditional reasoning. However, the
argument was not conditional.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, because it restates the columnist’s failure
to consider that the purpose of the activists’ proposal was to eliminate the additional risk created
by stringing the cable TV lines near the power lines, not to eliminate entirely the risk of animal
electrocution posed by power lines.
Answer choice (C): There is no indication in the stimulus that the activists’ proposal would have any
advantageous effect in addition to removing the increased risk of electrocution to animals.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice describes a Source argument. However, the columnist did
not address the wildlife activists’ character or motives.
Answer choice (E): Here, the answer choice describes rejecting the activists’ proposal to reduce
the threat of electrocution to animals based on evidence that there exists some other effective plan
to reduce the threat. However, the columnist neither indicated that the activists’ proposal would be
effective, nor rejected it merely in favor of some other effective proposal. Instead, the columnist
appeared to act as if there was no need for a proposal of that type because animals are killed by
power lines even when cable TV lines are not strung nearby.