#12 - Alexander: The chemical waste dump outside our town

[karen_k]

Hi,

Can you explain why B is correct and D is not? Thank you!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Karen,

Thanks for your question!

Alexander and Teresa are arguing over whether the chemical waste dump should be cleaned up. Alexander believes it should be, because they have an obligation to redress the harm done to the environment. Teresa, on the other hand, thinks that their first priority is the health of the people who live in that town. So, she argues, the dump should not be cleaned unless it presents a health hazard.

To strengthen this argument, you need to notice the gap in Teresa's reasoning. Just because people's health has the highest priority does not mean that it's the only reason for cleaning the dump. Since when do we care only about the items that are the highest on our priority list? One can easily argue that even if the dump doesn't pose a health hazard, you should still clean it up. Maybe you care about the environment, or just don't want any chemical waste lying around. Answer choice (B) strengthens her position by establishing the necessary link: resources should be allocated only to satisfy goals that have the highest priority.

By contrast, answer choice (D) accomplishes nothing. It tells us that environmental hazards that pose slight health risks to people should be rectified if the technology is available to do so. Does the chemical dump pose a slight health risk? We don't know. Do we have the technology necessary to fix the problem? Again, neither speaker is clear on that one. So, if you adopt the principle in answer choice (D), you wouldn't necessarily come to the same conclusion as Teresa did.

Does this make sense?

Thanks!

[karen_k]

Hi Nikki,

Yes, this makes a lot more sense now. Thank you!