Self-paced
P: Conclusion Complying with the new safety regulations is useless. ████ ██ ███ ███ ███████████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██████████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███████
██ ███ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███████ █████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ███████████ ████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ██ ███ ██ ████████
P's Argument
P concludes that it’s useless to follow the new safety regulations at the lab. Why? Because the regulations don’t address the causes of a fire that happened last year, and so the regulations wouldn’t have stopped the fire or prevented any injuries.
For P, the usefulness of the new regulations depends entirely on whether they would have changed the outcome in this one circumstance.
Q's Argument
Although not stated, Q’s argument leads to the implicit conclusion that following the new regulations is useful. Q says that any regulations that save money are useful, and the new regulations would prevent some accidents, thus saving money. This implies that the new regulations are therefore useful.
Unlike P, who focuses only on a specific incident, Q thinks that a wide range of potential accidents is worth considering.
12.
Q responds to P's position ██
a
extending the basis ███ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ███ ███████████
While P's basis of argument is only whether the new regulations would have prevented a particular fire, Q considers broadly whether the regulations might prevent accidents in general. This is a significant extension of how the new regulations might be useful.
b
citing additional evidence ████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ███████████ █████ ████ █████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██████████ ████
Q never disagrees that the regulations wouldn't have prevented the fire P discusses. Q instead pivots to discussing accidents in general.
c
giving examples to ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ ███████████
P doesn't claim that regulations in general are useless, so there's no need for Q to do this. P and Q are both discussing these particular lab safety regulations, and don't mention any other regulations.
d
showing that P's ████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████ █████ ████ █████████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ██████
Q doesn't address any false assumption that P makes. Instead, Q brings a wider range of potential accidents into consideration compared with P, who just focuses on a single fire.
e
pointing out a ███████ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ███████ █████████ ████████ ███ ██████ ████████
Q doesn't discuss the difference between potential and actual benefits. If anything, both P and Q are discussing potential benefits: both of them are speaking hypothetically, not examining data about the proven effects of these regulations.