#19 - Henry: Engines powered by electricity from batteries

[lathlee]

This weaken question

I don't see how the credited correct answer, A) would weaken. UMIT's conclusion:(Battery-powered electricity)'s widespread use would create a greater demand for electricity generated by power plants, which are themselves a major source of pollution.

a) still admits that there will be a greater demand shall be created. so it doesn't really hurt the cause ----> effect relationship
as in usage of electricity caused by greater demand (aka CAUSE) -----> More Pollution (AKA: Effect)

[Adam Tyson]

It's not just about total pollution, lathlee, but about URBAN pollution. Henry thinks URBAN pollution (pollution in and around cities) will be reduced. Umit thinks TOTAL pollution might be similar due to increased demand on power plants. Henry could respond with anything that says "yes, but the total amount of pollution IN AND AROUND CITIES would still be reduced." Every word matters, so read carefully!

[Khodi7531]

I consider this an acceptable loss.


I realize the difference of urban pollution and how Umit is not speaking of that but more general terms of pollution but don't understand how A can be considered the strongest counter here in any way.


B, my answer choice, is a potential response to Umit by showing that the power plants that are in demand could still remain the same if electric cars are to replace traditional ones - that may have had some link to power plants. Now I get that it's an assumption to think that last part but this is still supposed to be a solve the paradox/any answer goes to counter Umit's objection.


Appealing to A still seems to me like there is no counter on henry's part. Kind of going against the premise to of how they're major sources of pollution. And it being far away from major cities doesn't really matter to Umit, only to Henry.


Having a really hard time accepting A and would honestly be fine with missing questions like this.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Khodi7531,

Let's simplify the argument.

Henry: To reduce pollution in cities we should do X.
Umit: No. If we do X pollution will be worse because of Y.
Henry: (Answer A)- But pollution in cities will not be worse because of Y, so that's irrelevant to my argument.

One of the reasons this is tough is that what we (the readers) may be feeling here is that Henry is being shortsighted by only worrying about urban pollution. And we may feel that Umit does a better job of recognizing that pollution is a global issue. But this question is really asking us to defend Henry's shortsightedness and attack Umit's argument. Answer A does that.

In Answer B it sounds like benefits from electric cars and the detriments of increased power plant demands would cancel each other out and provide no net benefit. This would hurt Henry's argument because without a benefit there is really no reason to switch to the electric cars.

Hope that helps.

[tae.chung5]

Here's one way I approached this question. The question stem is asking us what kind of counter Henry can make to Umit's objection. Thinking like a lawyer, we need to stand on the side of Henry completely and attack Umit's objection.

When attacking Umit's objection, I would characterize Umit's argument is flawed - inadequate argument or not addressing the issue. Our client Henry is talking about the pollution reduction in urban areas only. But Umit is talking about the amount of pollution in general which misses Henry's point.

That's why (A) makes the strongest counter to Umit. Because it is like saying, "I know what you are saying, but I only care about the urban areas, stupid." Though our client Henry became a senseless anti-environmentalist, he won the argument.

[mizbuny]

This is how I ruled out answer choice B;

Henry's conclusion: there will be LESS pollution in urban locations than there is currently.

Umit's response: no, there will NOT be less because the increasing use of energy (note, Umit does not say there will be more pollution)

Answer choice B: actually, the increase of pollution from power plants will be OFFSET by the decrease in car pollution. (But, what do you mean by offset? Let's pretend increase is +1, and decrease is -1... in that case, Henry's conclusion that there will be LESS is not validated, it is possible pollution levels stay the same as they are now, but from different sources).

And of course, as others have pointed, answer choice A calls our attention to the fact that he is only talking about urban areas, so his conclusion still holds.

[James Finch]

Hi mizbuny and Tae Chung,

It sounds like you guys got it!

The key word in answer choice (B) is offset, as mizbuny noted. If the decreased air pollution in cities from a switch to electric vehicles is only offset by increased air pollution from electric plants, then all we've done is traded one source of pollution for another, and we still have the same amount of pollution, negating Henry's premise. If, on the other hand, we notice the change in scope from "urban pollution" to "pollution" more generally, (A) works as a counter because it keeps the urban pollution down, even if overall pollution stays the same or increases.

[coralconsulting77]

I would like to flesh this one out, since I think I have a good grasp on this question as a whole.

H Conclusion: to reduce urban pollution, we should replace standard autos with battery-powered vehicles
H Evidence: Engines powered by electricity cause less pollution than combustion engines

U Conclusion: I disagree (engines powered by electricity cause less pollution)
U Evidence: Battery powered vehicles have short-ranges which requires more charging. This charging creates greater demand for electricity which in turn causes the power plants to churn out more pollution.

Undermine: Well if this were me having the debate with say, the city council, I would highlight the fact that I mentioned greater pollution in Urban areas would be reduced, and that nowhere did I argue about the quantity of pollution. I would ask U to point out exactly how this analysis, assuming it is true impacts urban areas since that was what my claim was about.

A) This was the answer, although subtle, but its seems to undermine the assumption of U's claim that our conversation goes beyond Urban Areas. If pollution caused by power plants is confined to a small number of locations a significant distance from the city, then U's argument does not carry weight against H since after all, H specifically pointed to Urban areas in their argument as the point of reduction (mentioned in conclusion above).

B) This literally does nothing to an argument. Imagine if someone said "well the costs offset the benefits, so our points are both equal" how does that undermine an argument? All it does is equalize the stances, and if anything it is a concession since the original claimant (h) in this case is conceding their point to U.

C) This would be great, but it is out of scope, and there is no way of judging how it would impact the pollution since we have no way of knowing if anyone would actually purchase these cars. Furthermore, our claim is about the impacts of cars as a whole, not about a subset of cars.

D) Scope. So what? This has nothing to do with the argument at all.

E) Well if power plants are below capacity, and we increase the demand for power, we would ultimately be agreeing with umit that there would be a greater demand for power, and it may even be possible to infer that umits conclusion about greater pollution output would be correct.

[Adam Tyson]

Good analysis! Nothing to add here. Well done, coralconsulting77!

[snowy]

Can B also be ruled out because it speaks about air pollution specifically? So even if there weren't issues with the "offset" as mentioned above, the narrowness of a certain kind of pollution in B, while Umit is talking about pollution as a whole (and while Henry talks about a different specific kind of pollution) was also a red flag for me.

Is this fair reasoning?