Self-study
Charles: During recessions unemployment typically rises. █████ ██████ █ █████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██████████ █████ █████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ████ ████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ████ █████
██████ ███ █████ ████ ███ █████████ █████ █████████ ██████ █ █████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████
Summarize Argument
Charles argues that since unemployment rises in a recession, fewer people commute in cars to work. Therefore, Charles concludes, since cars are used less, air pollution from car exhaust must decrease in a recession.
Darla questions Charles's conclusion by bringing up another point. Not as many people can afford to buy new cars in a recession, and cars emit more pollutants as they age. So even if cars aren't being used as often as before, they might be emitting more pollutants per use during a recession, which would weaken Charles's conclusion and make it less clear what the net effect of a recession on exhaust pollution would be.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Darla points out an additional fact Charles’s argument does not account for: people buy fewer new cars during a recession, and older cars tend to emit more pollutants. This trend doesn't defeat Charles's argument — it could still be possible that the net effect of a recession would be to lower air pollution from car exhaust — but it does weaken the strength of Charles's support. Just knowing that people tend to use their cars less in a recession, which is all Charles tells us, now isn't enough to get us to his conclusion. We also need to know whether this trend is "stronger" than or outweighs the trend of older cars to emit more pollutants.
13.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████
a
It calls into ████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████
Darla does not question any of Charles’s premises. She does not deny that unemployment rises during a recession, or that fewer people commute in cars to jobs. She just brings up an additional fact that makes the result of those premises seem less clear.
b
It makes an ██████████ █████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██████
Darla’s claims do not contradict Charles’s conclusion. Her claims could still be true, and Charles's conclusion also be true. For instance, people might be using older cars in a recession, but because they use them so rarely, the overall effect could still be to reduce pollution from car exhaust. Darla's claim weakens Charles's argument given the current evidence, but it doesn't necessarily contradict it.
c
It presents an ██████████ █████████████ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████
This is correct. The additional consideration is that during a recession fewer people buy new cars, and older cars tend to emit more pollutants. This additional information makes Charles's evidence seem less likely to lead to his conclusion, since we don't know if the trends he mentions or the trend Darla mentions will have more of an effect on pollution. We now need additional information to be able to determine the net effect of a recession on exhaust pollution.
d
It argues that █████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ███████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████████
Darla doesn't argue that Charles is right about air pollution from car exhaust decreasing. Though she doesn't say Charles is necessarily wrong, either, she at least questions his argument.
e
It presents an ████████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ████ ███████ ███ ███████████
Darla’s claims are all about a consideration — an additional premise — Charles’s argument has overlooked. She doesn't claim that his premises themselves point to some conclusion that he has overlooked, let alone an absurd one.