- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Feb 13, 2017 3:17 pm
#32719
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)
This stimulus has a predictably complicated argument/counterargument structure. In fact, there are exactly three positions being expressed in it: the legislature’s, the supporters’, and the editorialist’s own views. The argument/counterargument structure of the stimulus can be summarized as follows:
The situation at Alphin Bay sounds dire indeed, but remember—in an argument by analogy, the author uses the presumption of similarity between two things (the oil drilling methods) to argue for a similar outcome (environmental damage). When used properly, an analogy can be a powerful tool of argumentation. However, if the author treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect, then the analogy is false and the conclusion is questionable.
If you see an analogy in the stimulus followed by a Strengthen question stem, focus on bolstering the strength of the analogy. This can be accomplished either by providing evidence of additional similarity between the items being compared, or else by rejecting any suspected material differences between them.
Answer choice (A): If the Cape Simmons Nature Preserve is one of the few areas of pristine wilderness remaining in the region, this would surely be a reason to protect it from environmental damage. Nobody is arguing, however, that the preserve should not be protected. The point at issue is whether oil drilling presents an environmental risk, not whether such a risk is permissible.
Answer choice (B): This is the Opposite answer choice, because it shows a difference between the oil drilling situations at Alphin Bay and in the nature preserve. Whereas the companies drilling for oil at the bay never claimed that drilling there would be environmentally safe, such assurances are now being made with respect to drilling for oil in the preserve. Promises are not always kept, of course, but the difference in outlook should be enough to soften the editorialist’s skepticism.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice expresses a belief that is already implied by the argument in the editorial; reiterating the necessity of environmental safety is not terribly helpful. The issue is not whether safety guarantees are necessary, but whether they are reliable.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If the oil drilling methods today are the same as they were five years ago, then the editorialist is justified in her concern that oil drilling will damage the nature preserve—just like it did in Alphin Bay five years ago. This answer choice suggests that the two situations are even more similar than they appear at first, bolstering the strength of the analogy between them.
Answer choice (E): This is another Opposite answer choice. If the environmental damage sustained by Alphin Bay can be attributed to other industrial activities, then the Bay is not a good example of the probable effects of oil drilling in the nature preserve. This answer choice weakens the argument, and is therefore incorrect.
Strengthen—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)
This stimulus has a predictably complicated argument/counterargument structure. In fact, there are exactly three positions being expressed in it: the legislature’s, the supporters’, and the editorialist’s own views. The argument/counterargument structure of the stimulus can be summarized as follows:
- Supporters:
Premise:
Modern drilling methods will be used.
Conclusion: Oil drilling will not damage the environment at the Cape Simmons Nature Preserve
Cause Effect
oil drilling 
damage preserve
Editorialist:
Premise: Oil drilling damaged Alphin Bay.
Conclusion: Oil drilling will damage the Cape Simmons Nature preserve.
Cause Effect
oil drilling damage preserve
The situation at Alphin Bay sounds dire indeed, but remember—in an argument by analogy, the author uses the presumption of similarity between two things (the oil drilling methods) to argue for a similar outcome (environmental damage). When used properly, an analogy can be a powerful tool of argumentation. However, if the author treats as similar two cases that are different in a critical respect, then the analogy is false and the conclusion is questionable.
If you see an analogy in the stimulus followed by a Strengthen question stem, focus on bolstering the strength of the analogy. This can be accomplished either by providing evidence of additional similarity between the items being compared, or else by rejecting any suspected material differences between them.
Answer choice (A): If the Cape Simmons Nature Preserve is one of the few areas of pristine wilderness remaining in the region, this would surely be a reason to protect it from environmental damage. Nobody is arguing, however, that the preserve should not be protected. The point at issue is whether oil drilling presents an environmental risk, not whether such a risk is permissible.
Answer choice (B): This is the Opposite answer choice, because it shows a difference between the oil drilling situations at Alphin Bay and in the nature preserve. Whereas the companies drilling for oil at the bay never claimed that drilling there would be environmentally safe, such assurances are now being made with respect to drilling for oil in the preserve. Promises are not always kept, of course, but the difference in outlook should be enough to soften the editorialist’s skepticism.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice expresses a belief that is already implied by the argument in the editorial; reiterating the necessity of environmental safety is not terribly helpful. The issue is not whether safety guarantees are necessary, but whether they are reliable.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If the oil drilling methods today are the same as they were five years ago, then the editorialist is justified in her concern that oil drilling will damage the nature preserve—just like it did in Alphin Bay five years ago. This answer choice suggests that the two situations are even more similar than they appear at first, bolstering the strength of the analogy between them.
Answer choice (E): This is another Opposite answer choice. If the environmental damage sustained by Alphin Bay can be attributed to other industrial activities, then the Bay is not a good example of the probable effects of oil drilling in the nature preserve. This answer choice weakens the argument, and is therefore incorrect.