Self-study
Land developer: By attempting to preserve endangered species that otherwise would become extinct during our lifetime, we are wasting money on species that will disappear over time regardless of our efforts. ███████████████ ████ ███████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████
█████████████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ █████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████ █ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The land developer claims that spending money to preserve species that are in danger of going extinct within a lifetime is a waste of money, because species are gradually going to go extinct anyway. The environmentalist responds by comparing the land developer's argument to the argument that we should not spend money to find a cure for cancer, since all humans are going to die anyway.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The environmentalist counters the land developer's argument. He does this by applying the same line of reasoning to an analogous situation — spending money to develop a cure for cancer — and showing how in that situation, the land developer's logic leads to a conclusion that seems absurd.
3.
The method the environmentalist uses ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ██
a
clarify a dilemma ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███████████ ████████
It's not clear what "dilemma" exists in the land developer’s argument. In any case, the environmentalist doesn't respond by focusing on or clarifying a sub-section of the land developer's argument, but by applying the whole line of reasoning to an analogous situation.
b
attack the character ██ ███ ████ █████████ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ██████
The environmentalist does not say anything about the land developer’s character. His response is focused entirely on the land developer’s argument.
c
show that more ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██████████
The environmentalist doesn't say that the land developer’s argument requires more evidence. His point is that the land developer’s argument as a whole is ridiculous, not that it lacks evidence.
d
show that the ████ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ █████ ████ ██ ██ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ █ █████████ █████████
This is correct. The environmentalist applies the land developer's reasoning to a different situation — spending money to find a cure for cancer — and shows how it would lead to a conclusion that doesn't make sense.
e
argue that there ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ ██████ █████
The environmentalist doesn't say anything about money being able or unable to solve certain problems.