Self-study
James: Chemists have recently invented a new technique for extracting rhodium, an element necessary for manufacturing catalytic converters for automobiles, from nuclear waste. █████████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ███ ██ ███████ █████ ██ █████████ ████████████ ██ ██ █████ ███ ███ ██ ████████ █ ███████ ████████████
██████ ███ █████████ ███ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ████████████ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ ██ █████████████ █████████ ███████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
James states that chemists have found a way to use nuclear waste as a source for rhodium, which is necessary for making catalytic converters for cars. Since catalytic converters remove harmful gases from car exhaust, James concludes that the use of nuclear power is contributing to a cleaner environment, at least in this one way. Marta responds by focusing on the actual use of the new technique: while she grants that the technique is effective, she points out that it is still in the experimental stage and has not yet actually been adopted in the manufacture of catalytic converters.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Marta doesn't necessarily disagree with any of James's premises. She says that the new technique is effective, implying that it works as James says it does, and she doesn't dispute that catalytic converters have a function in making the environment cleaner. But she disagrees with James's conclusion that through this technique, the use of nuclear power is now contributing to a cleaner environment. We know this because she points out something that James did not consider: the technique is in the experimental stage, and is not actually used yet in manufacturing catalytic converters. This means that, while all the benefits of this technique may be true, and while it may allow nuclear power to contribute to a cleaner environment sometime in the future, James's conclusion that nuclear power is currently contributing to a cleaner environment through this technique cannot be true.
20.
Marta responds to James's argument ██
a
casting doubt on ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████
Marta does not cast doubt on anything James has said in his premises. In fact, she concedes that the technique James mentions is effective, and she doesn't say anything to suggest she doesn't believe catalytic converters work as James says they do. She just adds a piece of information to what James has said, which James hasn't considered: despite all the likely benefits of this technique, it hasn't yet been adopted in the manufacturing industry.
b
questioning the credibility ██ █████████ ██ ███████ █████
Neither James nor Marta talks about advocates of nuclear power. We can't assume James himself is necessarily such an advocate. He just mentions one potential benefit of a specific technique related to nuclear power — he doesn't advocate for nuclear power overall. Besides, Marta doesn't question James's credibility, or anyone else's. She just mentions a piece of information James hasn't considered.
c
indicating that James ██ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ █████████
This answer choice is worded confusingly, but it is saying that Marta accuses James of circular reasoning — this is what it means for an argument to assume the truth of its conclusion. But James's argument is not circular. His conclusion — nuclear power is contributing in at least one way to a cleaner environment — is based on premises that are separate from his conclusion, and don't require his conclusion to be true: nuclear waste can contribute to making catalytic converters through a new technique, and catalytic converters remove noxious gases from car exhaust. And Marta doesn't accuse James of making a circular argument, she just points out additional information he hasn't considered.
d
pointing out a ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ███████
This is correct. Marta doesn't deny anything James has said, she just adds information he doesn't take into account in his argument: that the new technique has not yet been phased into the manufacture of catalytic converters. Just because this technique has been discovered and has potential benefits does not mean it is currently providing those benefits.
e
pointing out that ███████ ████████ ███ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████
Marta says nothing to suggest she doubts the plausibility of James’s premises. In fact, she concedes that the technique James mentions is effective. She undermines his conclusion by pointing out additional information, not by undermining his premises.