#13 - Fossil-fuel producers say that it would be prohibitive

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (D)

Whenever the author begins her argument by outlining someone else's position ("fossil-fuel producers say..."), you should anticipate that her conclusion would be in direct disagreement with that position. In this instance, the conclusion of her argument is that "this claim is probably false." Because remembering precisely the conclusion of the argument is vital to answering the question correctly, it pays off to paraphrase her language here in a complete sentence:

Conclusion: It is probably not prohibitively expensive to reduce levels of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels enough to halt global warming.

The author defends her position by making an analogy to the chemical industry: when forced to find substitutes for CFCs, it did so at a profit despite some initial skepticism.

Arguments that contain analogies always rely on the validity of those analogies. Therefore, you should look for answer choices that strengthen the analogy. In this instance, it will be important to show that the fossil-fuel producers too can make a profit (or at least not sustain significant losses) from being forced to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide.

Answer choice (A): Contrasting the chemical industry with the fossil-fuel producers can only hurt your case, which is why this answer is incorrect. Furthermore, describing how the levels of carbon dioxide have increased since the phasing out of CFCs is irrelevant to understanding why the fossil-fuel producers should take steps similar to the those undertaken earlier by the chemical industry.

Answer choice (B): At first glance, this answer choice provides some support to the author's conclusion by showing that it is possible to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels without prohibitive expense. However, this statement does not strengthen the analogy which is at the core of this argument. Furthermore, the second part of the answer choice provides potentially damaging information about inconveniencing users of such fuels. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice does the exact opposite of what is needed: you cannot strengthen the analogy between fossil-fuel producers and the chemical industry by showing how disparate their relative impact is on the environment. This answer choice is therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. By showing that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is possible without hurting the profits of fossil-fuel producers significantly more than phasing out CFCs hurt those of the chemical industry, this answer choice provides a much needed support for the analogy between the two industries.

Answer choice (E): This is an attractive answer choice, especially if you neglected to consider the precise scope of the conclusion. The argument is not about whether it is feasible for fossil-fuel producers to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but about whether they can afford to do it. The mere possibility of finding substitutes for fossil fuels does not guarantee that the fossil-fuel industry can avoid the prohibitive cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. If you found answer choice (E) attractive, you were misled by the classic Shell Game answer: a statement that supports a sufficiently similar, but substantively different conclusion from the one offered in the stimulus.

[pacer]

Can you go over answer choice D, especially the "significantly more than...." part?

I ended up eliminating this answer before of that last bit since the author is not making any claims in terms of more or less (quantified) profits/reduction in expenses when phasing out CFC's versus fossil fuels.


Choice B appeared to be more relevant to me since it gives a direct example of other countries that have followed suit.


Could I think of B as being wrong only because it provides another example/premise to strengthen the conclusion. In a strengthen question, we need to make the link between premise and conclusion as given more strong so D does a better job at that.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi pacer,

Answer choice (B) is not wrong because it provides another example/premise in support of the conclusion. If it did that, it would actually be a great answer choice. Any evidence that substantiates the conclusion will, by default, strengthen it. Yes, linking the premises to the conclusion - usually by eliminating a possible weakness or reaffirming an otherwise unwarranted assumption - can also strengthen the conclusion, but these are by no means the only modalities for strengthening an invalid argument.

Answer choice (B) is not a terrible way to strengthen the argument, but it's not great either. First, "some" can mean just one. The fact that "some countries" have been able to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuels doesn't mean that the author's country can do it. More importantly, answer choice (B) mentions a downside - "at some cost in convenience to the users of such fuels." Some might say that this weakens the recommendation proposed by the author. Ultimately answer choice (B) is incorrect because there is another answer choice that strengthens the conclusion much better - answer choice (D).

You ended up eliminating (D) because

the author is not making any claims in terms of more or less (quantified) profits/reduction in expenses when phasing out CFC's versus fossil fuels.

That's true, but you aren't answering a Must Be True question. The correct answer choice to a Strengthen questions will often introduce new - but relevant - information to the argument. So is the case here. If there are ways of reducing carbon dioxide 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, then it is even more likely that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will NOT be prohibitively expensive. Indeed, answer choice (D) overcomes a major weakness in the author's use of analogy: what if phasing out CFC's is quite different from reducing carbon dioxide emissions? What if there are cheap ways of doing the former, but only costly ways of doing the latter? According to answer choice (D), it is even easier to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than is to phase CFC's, making the conclusion that much stronger.

Remember - arguments based on analogy are inherently weak, as they rely on the often dubious assumption that the comparisons they use are reasonable. To strengthen them, you need to show that they are. Answer choice (D) does that, and is therefore correct.

Hope this clears things up!

[pacer]

Thanks!

So, if it was a weaken question where a stimulus used an analogy to make a conclusion, do we need to show that the analogy is too dissimilar and hence cannot support the conclusion that the author is making?

Is this usually the case when it comes to analogy type stimulus with strengthen/weaken questions? I mean, whenever I see a S or W question along with a an analogy stimulus, I should be thinking about the link of the analogy to the conclusion being drawn.

[Nikki Siclunov]

That's right: analogical reasoning is a common type of inductive argument on the test. The amount and variety of relevant similarities between two objects strengthens an analogical conclusion, and - inversely - the amount and variety of relevant dissimilarities weaken it.

Thanks!

[uhinberg]

Am I missing something? In my humble opinion, the only reason why answer B is wrong is b/c the stimulus is talking about reducing Carbon dioxide enough to halt global warming, and B does not specify the degree of reduction. Had the answer said that some countries have reduced carbon dioxide enough to halt global warming without prohibitive expense, it would have been a perfectly good answer, even if it does nothing to strengthen the analogy to CFCs.

[AthenaDalton]

You're on the right track about answer choice (B) -- it discusses reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but not reducing carbon dioxide emissions enough to halt global warming. The gap between these two emissions levels could be massive.

Answer choice (B) is also incorrect because it limits itself to an unspecified group of "some countries" being able to reduce emissions, while the argument as a whole speaks to the entire industry of fossil fuel producers.

The analogy to CFCs in the argument is helpful because it states that the entire energy industry managed to accomplish something with CFCs, so the entire energy industry to accomplish something similar with fossil fuels. Answer choice (D) further bolsters the analogy (and therefore the argument as a whole) by giving us evidence that it is scientifically feasible to reduce emissions from fossil fuels without too much of an impact on industry profits. That's a very strong piece of evidence that strengthens the author's argument.

I hope this helps -- good luck!

-Athena Dalton

[Lawyered]

So, how do we tell if this is a Justify Question or Strengthens? Owing to the "Most strengthens" I ended up thinking it was a justify question.

I was between D & E following most of your suggestions but, I did fall for the Shell game. Any way to avoid that? I think I must have ran fast through it. I am not able to get to all questions yet.

PS.I am done with about 11 chapters in the bible.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Lawyered,

Just in response to your comment, the "most strengthen" phrasing would never be a Justify question. Justification demands 100% completion of the task, and so typically the modifier "most" would take the task below 100%, which would automatically revert this to a regular Strengthen question. This is why something like "most justifies" is still a Strengthen question. Next, "strengthen" by itself doesn't equate to Justify (although the reverse is true), and so "most strengthens" would still be about basic strengthening, and Justify questions must meet a higher standard. If you want to review how these two types are connected, check out the first few pages of Chapter 9 and then Chapter 10.

Please let me know if this helps. Thanks!

[Lawyered]

Ah understood!

Yes, I absolutely will do that.

Also, I wanted to take a moment to thank you for writing these amazing bibles and having this forum community to help us out. This is incredibly helpful!!!

Thank you Mr.Killoran.