- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon May 22, 2017 6:30 pm
#35266
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen—CE. The correct answer choice is (C)
This is a causal argument where the author suggests that the actions of large corporations have
caused the government to reduce funding to alternative energy initiatives. The link, however, is very
tenuous, since the only evidence offered for the conclusion is the premise that corporations have
made a point of discouraging alternative-energy projects. Of course, funding decisions could easily
be made for other reasons than corporate discouragement and this argument would be significantly
improved by establishing a stronger link between the proposed cause and effect. The correct answer
choice should address both corporate actions and government in a way that makes a causal link
between the two more plausible.
Answer choice (A): This answer establishes a longstanding trend of failing to fund alternative-energy
initiatives but does not offer any insight into the cause of such a trend. If true, this premise does not
strengthen the reasoning above.
Answer choice (B): If true, answer choice (B) provides additional evidence to suggest that changes
in funding are to be expected. However, it does not make it more plausible that underfunding
alternative energy projects is due to corporate discouragement. In fact, this answer makes it just as
likely that a project will receive more funding as less funding.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If (C) is true, then there must be some
research projects which receive full funding, unlike alternative-energy initiatives in the stimulus.
In essence, this answer eliminates an alternate explanation, such as the argument that government
deficits or economic woes have cut funding to all research projects. By specifying that every
underfunded research project has been discouraged by large corporations, this answer strengthens the
reasoning above.
Answer choice (D): If anything, (D) tends to weaken the argument by demonstrating that the
effect (curtailed funding) is sometimes present when the opposite of the cause occurs (corporate
encouragement). When corporate encouragement is associated with reduced funding, it becomes less
likely that corporate discouragement has the same effect.
Answer choice (E): This answer strengthens the existence of the proposed cause, but reaffirming the
existence of a premise does not help strengthen a causal argument. The fact that corporations have
discouraged alternative-energy initiatives was never in doubt and does not need additional support,
but its mere existence is not sufficient to prove a claim that it caused the reduced funding.
Strengthen—CE. The correct answer choice is (C)
This is a causal argument where the author suggests that the actions of large corporations have
caused the government to reduce funding to alternative energy initiatives. The link, however, is very
tenuous, since the only evidence offered for the conclusion is the premise that corporations have
made a point of discouraging alternative-energy projects. Of course, funding decisions could easily
be made for other reasons than corporate discouragement and this argument would be significantly
improved by establishing a stronger link between the proposed cause and effect. The correct answer
choice should address both corporate actions and government in a way that makes a causal link
between the two more plausible.
Answer choice (A): This answer establishes a longstanding trend of failing to fund alternative-energy
initiatives but does not offer any insight into the cause of such a trend. If true, this premise does not
strengthen the reasoning above.
Answer choice (B): If true, answer choice (B) provides additional evidence to suggest that changes
in funding are to be expected. However, it does not make it more plausible that underfunding
alternative energy projects is due to corporate discouragement. In fact, this answer makes it just as
likely that a project will receive more funding as less funding.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If (C) is true, then there must be some
research projects which receive full funding, unlike alternative-energy initiatives in the stimulus.
In essence, this answer eliminates an alternate explanation, such as the argument that government
deficits or economic woes have cut funding to all research projects. By specifying that every
underfunded research project has been discouraged by large corporations, this answer strengthens the
reasoning above.
Answer choice (D): If anything, (D) tends to weaken the argument by demonstrating that the
effect (curtailed funding) is sometimes present when the opposite of the cause occurs (corporate
encouragement). When corporate encouragement is associated with reduced funding, it becomes less
likely that corporate discouragement has the same effect.
Answer choice (E): This answer strengthens the existence of the proposed cause, but reaffirming the
existence of a premise does not help strengthen a causal argument. The fact that corporations have
discouraged alternative-energy initiatives was never in doubt and does not need additional support,
but its mere existence is not sufficient to prove a claim that it caused the reduced funding.