- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 1079
- Joined: Jun 26, 2013
- Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:00 am
#74863
Complete Question Explanation
Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)
Here we have two speakers. The Opponent of offshore oil drilling argues that the projected benefits of drilling new oil wells are not worth the risk of environmental disaster since they would only add one half of 1 percent of the country's daily oil requirement. The Proponent thinks the Opponent's argument is ridiculous because if you applied the same logic to farming, no new farms would be allowed because no new farm could provide more than a few minutes worth of daily food needs for the country. The Proponent, therefore, uses a parallel case (that of farming) to illustrate the ridiculousness of the Opponent's reasoning. Thus, we are looking for an answer choice that describes how the Proponent shows the flaw in the Opponent's argument by applying the Opponent's reasoning to a similar scenario.
Answer choice (A): The Proponent does not offer any evidence in support of drilling. He only illustrates the flaw in the Opponent's argument by applying the same logic to a similar case.
Answer choice (B): The Proponent does not attack the statistics cited by the Opponent. Instead he uses a comparison to show that those statistics do not in fact prove the Opponent's argument.
Answer choice (C): The Proponent points out the ridiculousness of the Opponent's argument. He does not concede that the Opponent's argument is just a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing. He does not suggest that the Opponent's reasoning would ever be legitimate. In fact, The Proponent's comparison suggests that the Opponent's argument would be ridiculous in any scenario.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice matches our prephrase. The Proponent uses a parallel argument to illustrate the ridiculousness of the argument drawn by the Opponent. The Proponent suggests that since it would be absurd to draw the same conclusion about new farms from the same type of premise, the Opponent's own conclusion is also strikingly unsupported by his premise.
Answer choice (E): The Proponent does not state that the Opponent's evidence more strongly supports a different conclusion. He only says that the Opponent's evidence does not support the conclusion he is trying to make, but again he does not suggest that it supports an alternative conclusion.
Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)
Here we have two speakers. The Opponent of offshore oil drilling argues that the projected benefits of drilling new oil wells are not worth the risk of environmental disaster since they would only add one half of 1 percent of the country's daily oil requirement. The Proponent thinks the Opponent's argument is ridiculous because if you applied the same logic to farming, no new farms would be allowed because no new farm could provide more than a few minutes worth of daily food needs for the country. The Proponent, therefore, uses a parallel case (that of farming) to illustrate the ridiculousness of the Opponent's reasoning. Thus, we are looking for an answer choice that describes how the Proponent shows the flaw in the Opponent's argument by applying the Opponent's reasoning to a similar scenario.
Answer choice (A): The Proponent does not offer any evidence in support of drilling. He only illustrates the flaw in the Opponent's argument by applying the same logic to a similar case.
Answer choice (B): The Proponent does not attack the statistics cited by the Opponent. Instead he uses a comparison to show that those statistics do not in fact prove the Opponent's argument.
Answer choice (C): The Proponent points out the ridiculousness of the Opponent's argument. He does not concede that the Opponent's argument is just a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing. He does not suggest that the Opponent's reasoning would ever be legitimate. In fact, The Proponent's comparison suggests that the Opponent's argument would be ridiculous in any scenario.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice matches our prephrase. The Proponent uses a parallel argument to illustrate the ridiculousness of the argument drawn by the Opponent. The Proponent suggests that since it would be absurd to draw the same conclusion about new farms from the same type of premise, the Opponent's own conclusion is also strikingly unsupported by his premise.
Answer choice (E): The Proponent does not state that the Opponent's evidence more strongly supports a different conclusion. He only says that the Opponent's evidence does not support the conclusion he is trying to make, but again he does not suggest that it supports an alternative conclusion.
