- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:19 pm
#22646
Question #5: Weaken. The correct answer choice is (C).
Trees absorb CO2, and so it stands to reason that if we plant a lot of them, we can help reduce the CO2 emissions over the next ten years. The minister’s argument is weak in more ways than one. Just because trees absorb CO2 does not mean that they can absorb enough of it to achieve the desired effect. Furthermore, what if there are significant environmental costs to planting so many trees? Or, what if they take more than ten years to grow to maturity, and absorb very little CO2 in the meantime? The author’s recommendation does not consider any of these downsides, making the feasibility of the proposed solution vulnerable to attack.
Whenever a solution to a particular problem is suggested, make sure to consider all possible downsides and verify that the author has made a reasonable attempt at performing a cost/benefit analysis. If such considerations are missing from the argument, the solution is, at best, questionable.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice raises a potential obstacle to planting trees on large tracts of private land: owners of such land would want a financial incentive for doing so. While this may appear to weaken the feasibility of the proposed solution, the minister never said that she wanted to use private land for this project, and even if she does, we are given no indication as to whether a financial incentive would be offered. Since we cannot weaken the unknown, this answer choice does not represent a true obstacle to the proposed solution.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice suggests that, over the past ten years, CO2 emissions have increased at a rate faster than the rate of deforestation. Deforestation is clearly a problem, one that the proposed solution would hopefully ameliorate. It is unclear, however, how the historical comparison presented in this answer choice would be relevant to evaluating the feasibility of this solution.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. By suggesting that the environmental cost of planting so many trees would outstrip the potential short-term benefits, this answer choice introduces a considerable downside to the proposed solution. While we could not have prephrased this issue with such specificity, answer choice (C) matches the general direction of our prephrase and is therefore correct.
Answer choice (D): The minister’s only concern is whether planting a large number of trees would help achieve the objective of reducing CO2 emissions as stated, i.e. within the next ten years. Whether this objective represents an adequate response to the problem of global warming is an entirely different argument that has no bearing on the issue at stake.
Answer choice (E): This Shell Game answer choice may seem attractive, because it suggests that the problem of global warming will not be fully resolved by reducing CO2 emissions: apparently, gasses other than CO2 also play a role in global warming. Notice, however, the qualified nature of the minister’s conclusion: she never claims that planting trees would be an adequate response to global warming. Her proposal is only meant to help reduce CO2 emissions. Although her objective reflects her country’s concern about global warming, the argument itself is not about global warming. Do not generalize, and make sure to understand the precise scope of the conclusion before examining the answer choices! In Weaken questions, the Shell Game is usually used to attack a conclusion that is similar to, but slightly different from, the one presented in the stimulus.
Trees absorb CO2, and so it stands to reason that if we plant a lot of them, we can help reduce the CO2 emissions over the next ten years. The minister’s argument is weak in more ways than one. Just because trees absorb CO2 does not mean that they can absorb enough of it to achieve the desired effect. Furthermore, what if there are significant environmental costs to planting so many trees? Or, what if they take more than ten years to grow to maturity, and absorb very little CO2 in the meantime? The author’s recommendation does not consider any of these downsides, making the feasibility of the proposed solution vulnerable to attack.
Whenever a solution to a particular problem is suggested, make sure to consider all possible downsides and verify that the author has made a reasonable attempt at performing a cost/benefit analysis. If such considerations are missing from the argument, the solution is, at best, questionable.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice raises a potential obstacle to planting trees on large tracts of private land: owners of such land would want a financial incentive for doing so. While this may appear to weaken the feasibility of the proposed solution, the minister never said that she wanted to use private land for this project, and even if she does, we are given no indication as to whether a financial incentive would be offered. Since we cannot weaken the unknown, this answer choice does not represent a true obstacle to the proposed solution.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice suggests that, over the past ten years, CO2 emissions have increased at a rate faster than the rate of deforestation. Deforestation is clearly a problem, one that the proposed solution would hopefully ameliorate. It is unclear, however, how the historical comparison presented in this answer choice would be relevant to evaluating the feasibility of this solution.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. By suggesting that the environmental cost of planting so many trees would outstrip the potential short-term benefits, this answer choice introduces a considerable downside to the proposed solution. While we could not have prephrased this issue with such specificity, answer choice (C) matches the general direction of our prephrase and is therefore correct.
Answer choice (D): The minister’s only concern is whether planting a large number of trees would help achieve the objective of reducing CO2 emissions as stated, i.e. within the next ten years. Whether this objective represents an adequate response to the problem of global warming is an entirely different argument that has no bearing on the issue at stake.
Answer choice (E): This Shell Game answer choice may seem attractive, because it suggests that the problem of global warming will not be fully resolved by reducing CO2 emissions: apparently, gasses other than CO2 also play a role in global warming. Notice, however, the qualified nature of the minister’s conclusion: she never claims that planting trees would be an adequate response to global warming. Her proposal is only meant to help reduce CO2 emissions. Although her objective reflects her country’s concern about global warming, the argument itself is not about global warming. Do not generalize, and make sure to understand the precise scope of the conclusion before examining the answer choices! In Weaken questions, the Shell Game is usually used to attack a conclusion that is similar to, but slightly different from, the one presented in the stimulus.