#13 - Charles: During recessions unemployment typically rise

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning-CE. The correct answer choice is (C)

In this stimulus, Charles points out that during recessions unemployment generally rises, which means that fewer people are commuting to jobs. He argues that, because fewer people are traveling to jobs, cars emitting pollutants are used less, and concludes that air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases.

Darla wonders why we should think that air pollution (from cars) would decrease, because during a recession fewer people can afford new cars, but as cars age they pollute more.

Darla makes a legitimate point, because even with fewer cars on the road, pollution could increase if the cars are "dirtier." Charles' argument is based on incomplete evidence, and many issues could damage his conclusion. Darla brings up an additional consideration, and you should realize that Darla has provided the critique you will likely need, and proceed to the answer choices.

This question asks you to describe the relationship of Darla's response to Charles' argument, so you should focus on the fact that Darla introduces a new interpretation of the evidence Charles has presented.

Answer choice (A): Darla does not attack Charles' premises; she merely adds the entirely new consideration of whether the cars on the road might be "dirtier" during a recession. That shows that Charles' premises may not be sufficient to prove his conclusion, but it is an attack on the argument, not the premise.

Answer choice (B): This choice states that if Darla's claim is true, then Charles' conclusion is false. However, Darla's claim does not prove Charles wrong. Introducing additional considerations generally reduces a "strong" conclusion to an "uncertain" conclusion; it does not prove the conclusion false, so this choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Darla's additional consideration of whether the cars on the road would be "dirtier" challenges the notion that simply having fewer cars on the road would be sufficient to prove that pollution would decrease, so she weakens the support that Charles' conclusion receives from his evidence.

Answer choice (D): Darla questions whether Charles' conclusion is true, so this response that claims that she supports his conclusion is contrary to the stimulus, and incorrect.

Answer choice (E): Darla does not commandeer Charles' reasoning to demonstrate an absurdity; instead, Darla adds a consideration that shows that Charles' argument may not be sufficiently complete.

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

I thought for this question that the correct answer is B, however, it is C. I thought that it is B, however, I think I might have confused the term claim and premise? Because if it said claim instead of premise that answer might have worked? I just thought that they cannot both be correct, so one of them has to be wrong. So, if what Darla is saying is right, than Charles conclusion is wrong. However, it might be the other way around and this is where I went wrong.

I am bringing my thought process from memory since, I timed myself, so I might not be totally accurate about my thought process. But I would like to know where I went wrong.

Thanks

Ellen

[David Boyle]

Dear Powerscore,

I thought for this question that the correct answer is B, however, it is C. I thought that it is B, however, I think I might have confused the term claim and premise? Because if it said claim instead of premise that answer might have worked? I just thought that they cannot both be correct, so one of them has to be wrong. So, if what Darla is saying is right, than Charles conclusion is wrong. However, it might be the other way around and this is where I went wrong.

I am bringing my thought process from memory since, I timed myself, so I might not be totally accurate about my thought process. But I would like to know where I went wrong.

Thanks

Ellen

Hello Ellen,

I'm not sure any of us understands his own thought process completely!
Anyway, in B, it isn't necessarily true that Charles' conclusion must be false if Darla's claim/premise is true. ("Claim" and "premise" may be interchangeable here) Maybe the old cars do emit some more pollution, but overall, because of other factors, the overall pollution goes down, as Charles says.
C makes better sense in that it weakens Charles' conclusion, even if it doesn't destroy it.

Hope that helps,
David

[lenihil]

Dear Powerscore,

I thought for this question that the correct answer is (B), either.

(B) says: Darla present an additional claim that can be true only if Charles's conclusion is false.

I tried to pin down (B) to concrete details. Please tell me if I did it wrong:
Darla present an additional claim (Why think that air pollution would decrease? That is, air pollution doesn't decrease.) that can be true only if Charles's conclusion (air pollution decreases) is false (Darla true -> Charles false. That is, pollution doesn't decrease -> no air pullution decrease).

I think that (B) is the same as saying Darla's conclusion and Charles's conclusion contradict each other. Did I miss anything?

Thank you for your help.

[Adam Tyson]

The issue there, lenihil, is the distinction between making a claim and asking a question. Darla's question is not a claim, because it doesn't state anything. It might imply that Darla thinks that air pollution has not decreased, but it does not say so. Darla's only claims are that fewer people can buy new cars, and that cars pollute more as they age, and it is possible that those are both true and that Charles' conclusion is also true at the same time. That's why B does not accurately describe what happened in the stimulus.

[flowskiferda]

I agree with everything else about C, but I don't see how it's weakening the support. It seems to be bringing up another question that may prove his conclusion false. Charles' support for his conclusion is that 1) fewer people commute in cars and 2)therefore, cars, which emit pollutants, are used less. C certainly calls the conclusion into question, but it does not seem to be weakening the support.

[Robert Carroll]

flow,

I don't think Darla could weaken his argument without weakening its support. If she didn't weaken his support, in what sense could she be disputing his conclusion? If his support stayed as strong as ever, it would seem she was implicitly accepting his conclusion could be just as true as before, which she certainly isn't doing.

Charles's conclusion is that during a recession air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases. His is a conclusion about all automobile-exhaust-related air pollution during a recession. His evidence, though, is about only one factor that may change emissions during recessions. Darla is bringing up another consideration during recessions that could affect pollution a different way. Thus, she's not disputing that his premise is factually true, but instead disputing that it's sufficient to establish his much broader conclusion. Saying, basically, "That evidence isn't enough to prove your conclusion" looks like weakening the support his evidence gives.

Robert Carroll