#2 - Columnist: Making some types of products from recycled

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw. The correct answer choice is (D).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (E):

[theamazingrace]

What type of flaw is present here? Could it be lack of evidence against?

[Adam Tyson]

Not a "lack of evidence" flaw - that's where the author says something like "you haven't proven it's true, so it must be false" or "you haven't proven it's false, so it must be true."

This is more like a "some evidence" flaw. The author has some evidence (regarding energy usage) that making certain products from recycled materials may be just as damaging as making them from nonrecycled materials, and then proceeds as if that evidence was, by itself, sufficient, without failing to consider other evidence.

[Bruin96]

Can someone explain why C is wrong?

I picked D as it was my pre-phrase. However, I can't find a reason to rule C out other than D being more attractive.

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with answer C, Bruin96, is that it doesn't matter if the products the columnist is arguing about are representative of recycled products generally, because their conclusion isn't about recycled products generally. It's just about those recycled products that she is talking about in her argument, the ones that use just as much energy to recycle as would be used to produce new ones. Answer C might be true, but it's not relevant to the argument since the argument is only about certain recycled products rather than being about all recycled products. Tricky, right?

[oliviaguerra7]

Hello! Could someone please break down the process of this flaw question? Thank you!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi oliviaguerra7!

This stimulus concludes that making certain types of products from recycled materials is "probably as damaging to the environment" as making those products from non-recycled materials. Why does the author conclude this? The author reasons that it takes roughly the same amount of energy to produce the products from recycled materials as it takes to produce them from non-recycled materials.

The stimulus seems to take the energy expended in production as determinative on whether making products from non-recycled materials is "as damaging to the environment." However, what if there were other relevant factors that shaped how damaging it was to the environment? This is what (D) gets at--the stimulus "fails to consider that making products from recycled materials may have environmental benefits unrelated to energy consumption." For example, one benefit might be that recycling repurposes materials instead of letting them clutter landfills.

[a.hopp]

I got this question correct, but I didn't like any of the answers.

D didn't seem the strongest to me at first because the environmental benefits don't take away energy consumption damages. Benefits unrelated to energy consumption seemed irrelevant to the argument if the recycling process was argued to be just as damaging as using raw materials.

I understand that additional benefits may "offset" environmental damages from recycled materials while the same is not true of raw materials - is that why D is correct?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi a.hopp!

Yes, your reasoning generally sounds correct. The stimulus fails to consider possible additional benefits of making products from recycled materials, which may shape their overall environmental impact.

[TootyFrooty]

The problem with answer C, Bruin96, is that it doesn't matter if the products the columnist is arguing about are representative of recycled products generally, because their conclusion isn't about recycled products generally. It's just about those recycled products that she is talking about in her argument, the ones that use just as much energy to recycle as would be used to produce new ones. Answer C might be true, but it's not relevant to the argument since the argument is only about certain recycled products rather than being about all recycled products. Tricky, right?

Hi! I'm still not catching the trick because the author says "Some" products that are made from recycled materials. Then goes on to say "the recycling process for THOSE products"... This is the reason why I chose C because at all times the author used the "part" to be the newly made product and not necessarily the recycled materials. I chose C because it invalidated his argument regarding "manufacturing products from recycled materials takes just as much as energy.."

I was split between C and D and went with C because this is how I read the argument. Can you please clarify and help me understand? Thank you!!