dan
Thanks Received: 155
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 202
Joined: March 10th, 2009
 
This post thanked 5 times.
 
 

Q13 - Fossil-fuel producers say

by dan Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:07 pm

13. (D)
Question type: Strengthen the Conclusion

In this argument, a conclusion is justified through the use of an example. The argument can be strengthened if the connection between the conclusion and the example can be strengthened (i.e., if we can see that what happened with CFCs will happen with carbon dioxide levels).

(D) is the correct answer. It shows that, not only does this current situation _ carbon dioxide levels _ have the same characteristics as the CFC scenario, but also that it has these characteristics to a greater degree. This strengthens the conclusion.

(A) gives us more context for the discussion, but it doesn’t help us see that what happened with CFC’s will happen with carbon dioxide.
(B) could be correct if the degree of its impact was more significant. The fossil fuel producers are not saying that levels of carbon dioxide cannot be lowered _ but rather that they can’t be lowered to the point of halting global warming. Therefore, even if (B) was true, it wouldn’t go against the point made by the fossil fuel producers, and therefore doesn’t strengthen the conclusion.
(C) involves a comparison that is irrelevant to the argument at hand.
(E) is attractive, but finding a substitute is not what is specifically needed here. That substitute could be prohibitively expensive.
 
mrudula_2005
Thanks Received: 21
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 136
Joined: July 29th, 2010
 
 
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q13 - Fossil-fuel producers say

by mrudula_2005 Wed Sep 01, 2010 4:09 pm

But "D" states that there are ways of reducing CO2 emissions that could halt global warming without hurting profits of fossil-fuel producers "significantly more" than phasing out CFCs hurt those of the chemical industry...while these ways might not be significantly more of a blow to profits, they sure as heck could still entail more of a hindrance to the profits for the CO2 case than for the chemical industry and that would not solidify things for us at all regarding whether or not it would be prohibitively expensive or not. because who knows what the threshold is?

maybe the chemical industry just squeaked by with a level of profit that barely deems it to not be prohibitively expensive and so anything even minutely more costly or more of a blow to profits, would be labeled "prohibitively expensive" ??? in D, just the fact that there are ways of reducing CO2 emissions that aren't significantly more of a hurt to profits, doesn't show anything because they can still HURT profits more which does not help in strengthening the analogy.



thanks in advance!
 
farhadshekib
Thanks Received: 45
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 99
Joined: May 05th, 2011
 
This post thanked 3 times.
 
trophy
Most Thanked
 

Re: PT50, S2, Q13 Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be

by farhadshekib Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:10 pm

But "D" states that there are ways of reducing CO2 emissions that could halt global warming without hurting profits of fossil-fuel producers "significantly more" than phasing out CFCs hurt those of the chemical industry...

while these ways might not be significantly more of a blow to profits, they sure as heck could still entail more of a hindrance to the profits for the CO2 case than for the chemical industry and that would not solidify things for us at all regarding whether or not it would be prohibitively expensive or not. because who knows what the threshold is?

maybe the chemical industry just squeaked by with a level of profit that barely deems it to not be prohibitively expensive and so anything even minutely more costly or more of a blow to profits, would be labeled "prohibitively expensive" ??? in D, just the fact that there are ways of reducing CO2 emissions that aren't significantly more of a hurt to profits, doesn't show anything because they can still HURT profits more which does not help in strengthening the analogy.

thanks in advance!


The conclusion, to paraphrase, is:

It would not be prohibitively expensive to reduce levels of CO2 emitted by the use of fossil fuels enough to halt global warming.

The main support for this contention is:

Chemical industry found a cheap substitute for CFCs, in many cases at a profit.

In other words: it has been done before, so it can be done again...

The argument implies that phasing out CFCs didn't significantly hurt the profits of chemical companies; in fact, it actually made them $$$ in some cases.

(D) says that we can reduce CO2 emissions that halt global warming w/o hurting profits of fossil fuel producers significantly more than phasing out CFCs hurt the chemical industry.


Moreover, the conclusion of the argument ( i.e. NOT PROHIBITIVELY expensive) leaves open the possibility that the fossil fuel producers may lose some money by making this shift to less CO2.

However, (D) simply tells us they won't lose a great deal of money. In other words: this shift to less CO2 by the fossil fuel producers will not be prohibitively expensive for them...
 
T.J.
Thanks Received: 0
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 63
Joined: May 21st, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q13 - Fossil-fuel producers say

by T.J. Sun Dec 22, 2013 4:28 pm

This question is such an excellent example in which if we focus on the argument, it will pay off big-time. To strengthen an argument that uses an example to make the point, we need to tie this very example closer with the argument. After realizing this, I was able to see through the wrong answer choices.
(B) actually turns out to be more nuanced than I thought it would be. First, the fact that the use of fossil fuels has been reduced does not match with "to halt global warming" in the stimulus. Second, that it succeeded "in some countries" does not warrant the same kind of success in this country. Third, (B) does not really work on the argument core in that it does not have much impact in terms of relating the example given to the core.
 
eve.lederman
Thanks Received: 2
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 17
Joined: June 03rd, 2014
 
 
 

Re: Q13 - Fossil-fuel producers say

by eve.lederman Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:40 pm

This might sound a bit ridiculous, but the reason why I didn't pick D was because I didn't understand what the last part of it meant. Can someone explain "phasing out CFCs hurt those of the chem industry?" I thought the answer was missing a word or something.
User avatar
 
maryadkins
Thanks Received: 641
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: March 23rd, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q13 - Fossil-fuel producers say

by maryadkins Tue Oct 21, 2014 1:27 pm

It's just referring to when the chemical industry stopped using CFCs. So it's saying: There are ways to lower CO2 emissions that aren't going to be any worse for profits for fossil fuel producers than halting CFCs was for chemistry industry profits. Put even simpler, it's saying, fossil fuel industry isn't going to lose any more profits than the chemical industry did when it phased out CFCs.
 
gabcap1
Thanks Received: 2
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 9
Joined: January 21st, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q13 - Fossil-fuel producers say

by gabcap1 Mon Sep 07, 2015 12:52 pm

I would actually argue that (B) weakens. While it's opening up the possibility that the fossil fuel producers have reduced the impact of fossil fuel without impacting their costs, the idea that it inconveniences their customers opens up the possibility that it could threaten their profits by not meeting their customers' needs.
 
layamaheshwari
Thanks Received: 5
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 22
Joined: April 23rd, 2016
 
 
 

Re: Q13 - Fossil-fuel producers say

by layamaheshwari Tue Jun 07, 2016 9:12 pm

maryadkins Wrote:It's just referring to when the chemical industry stopped using CFCs. So it's saying: There are ways to lower CO2 emissions that aren't going to be any worse for profits for fossil fuel producers than halting CFCs was for chemistry industry profits. Put even simpler, it's saying, fossil fuel industry isn't going to lose any more profits than the chemical industry did when it phased out CFCs.


Can you elaborate on why answer choice (E) is wrong for this question? I picked that and don't understand fully what rules it out.
 
roflcoptersoisoi
Thanks Received: 0
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 165
Joined: April 30th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q13 - Fossil-fuel producers say

by roflcoptersoisoi Sat Sep 10, 2016 8:30 pm

gabcap1 Wrote:I would actually argue that (B) weakens. While it's opening up the possibility that the fossil fuel producers have reduced the impact of fossil fuel without impacting their costs, the idea that it inconveniences their customers opens up the possibility that it could threaten their profits by not meeting their customers' needs.


I would disagree about B weakening because while those countries CO2 emission has been reduced without prohibitive expense, we don't know the degree to which it has i.e., to a level sufficient to halt global warming as stated in the stimulus.
 
AyakiK696
Thanks Received: 2
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 56
Joined: July 05th, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q13 - Fossil-fuel producers say

by AyakiK696 Sat Oct 14, 2017 5:50 pm

I had the same thought-process as the second poster.... Ultimately, I can see how D is the best answer out of all of those given, but how can we equate "without hurting profits significantly more" with "prohibitively expensive"? The reason I eliminated this answer was because I thought that even if it doesn't seem SIGNIFICANTLY more, it could still hurt them enough to have a damaging effect ("prohibitively expensive").
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
This post thanked 4 times.
 
 

Re: Q13 - Fossil-fuel producers say

by ohthatpatrick Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:35 pm

"prohibitively expensive" = so expensive that it's impossible

In the context of a for-profit business, we know from common sense that a business needs to at least break even to survive. Ideally, it wants to profit.

Something that is prohibitively expensive would presumably indicate "operating at a loss" - i.e., doing WORSE than merely breaking even.

The argument boils down to saying,
"How can person X say that thing Y is impossible? After all, person A was able to thing B."

The argument assumes that thing Y and thing B are fair to compare.

OUR OBJECTION:
Just because the chemical industry found an economically possible way to solve the CFC problem doesn't mean that the fossil-fuel industry could find an economically possible way to solve the carbon dioxide problem!

(D) is shutting down that objection, and thus strengthening the argument.

It's saying that "it would be EVEN MORE economically possible for the fossil-fuel industry to solve the carbon dioxide than it was for the chemical industry to solve the CFC problem."

Be careful about the mentality in your final line:
"even if it doesn't seem SIGNIFICANTLY more, it could still hurt them enough to have a damaging effect ("prohibitively expensive")."


Remember that Strengthen and Weaken correct answers aren't expected to PROVE or REFUTE. There's always room for the opposition to still win the conversation. You're only picking correct answers based on whether they have SOME effect.

Yes, it's true that the solutions to the fossil fuel problem might still be economically damaging to the fossil fuel industry. But "prohibitively expensive" sounds like "impossible to do". (D) definitely makes it seem like the solutions are POSSIBLE to do.
 
AyakiK696
Thanks Received: 2
Elle Woods
Elle Woods
 
Posts: 56
Joined: July 05th, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q13 - Fossil-fuel producers say

by AyakiK696 Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:56 pm

Thank you! This clears a lot of things up for me. I definitely have to be more careful about being tricked by my "prove/refute" mentality for these types of questions.