CAT 6 (Bold face) - Local authorities are considering an ame

[JbhB682]

Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that would raise the fine for littering in the community picnic area to $1,000. Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community picnic area. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area. Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether.

In the argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?


A. The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.

B. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second raises evidence against this prediction.

C. The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this fact.

D. The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.

E. The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a line of reasoning to support this prediction.

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts -

I think what really helps is de-construction as per the Manhattan guide suggests. I tried de-constructing and i was wondering if my de-constructions are accurate.

Thank you !

[JbhB682]

Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that would raise the fine for littering in the community picnic area to $1,000.

.

This seems to be a fact. I think this fact is most likely playing the role of background info not a premise

Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community picnic area.

.

This I don't think this is a claim. This seems to be a fact (given the observations are in the past)

However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the amount of litter in the picnic area

This is clearly a conclusion

Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether.

This is a premise to the above conclusion

[esledge]

Your assessment on this one looks good (and it relates to my reply to you in this thread).

Try not to get too hung up on whether a fact is background or premise. If something supports the conclusion (even a little), you can call it a premise. On these boldface questions, I've never seen background be bolded, maybe because it is just not interesting enough to ask a question about!