Astronomer: Conclusion Mount Shalko is the perfect site for the proposed astronomical observatory. ███ ██████ █████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ █████████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ ██ █████ ██████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██████████ ████ ███████████ █████████████ ███████ █████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ █ ██████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██ █████ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ████████████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ ██ █████████ ████ ███████ ████████████ █████ █████ ███ ████████ █████ █████ ██████ █ ██████ ██ ███ █████████
The astronomer claims that Mount Shalko is a perfect site for a new proposed observatory. The support follows two lines of reasoning.
First, the site is suitable. There’s enough space for the building and no smog or light pollution from nearby cities.
Second, it would protect ecology, not harm it as some critics fear. The mountain currently has many recreational users who threaten its ecology, but recreational use would be precluded by the observatory.
The astronomer assumes that the site would remain suitable, for example that no new cities are planned to be built nearby in the near future.
The astronomer also assumes that the process of building the observatory, and the building’s ongoing presence on the mountain, wouldn’t harm the mountain’s ecology more than the current recreational use does.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████████ █████████
More than a █████ ██████ ███ █████ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ █████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████
This does not weaken the argument, because the astronomer never contests the point that Mount Shalko is a unique ecological site. Instead, the argument is that the observatory would actually protect the mountain’s ecology by precluding recreational use.
A coalition of ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ █████████████ ███ ███████ █████████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ████████████
This does not weaken the argument, because the number or type of people who oppose building the observatory has no bearing on the astronomer’s argument. Just because there’s broad opposition, that tells us nothing about the merits of the astronomer’s claims.
Having a complex ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ████████████ ████
This weakens the argument by undermining the astronomer’s claim that the observatory would protect the mountain’s ecology by eliminating recreational use. If the observatory could be just as harmful, then there’s no ecological benefit to building it.
The building of ███ ███████████ █████ ███ █████ ███ █████ █████ ████ █████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ █ █████ █████ ████████ ████ █████ ██████ ███████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████████
This does not weaken the argument, because it partially affirms the astronomer’s assumption that no new cities will soon develop near Mount Shalko. In fact, by doing so, this strengthens the argument.
A survey conducted ██ █ ████ ██ ████ ███████ █████████ ████ ███ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ █████████ ███ ████████████ ███ ████ █████ ███████
This does not weaken the argument because whether or not other nearby mountains are suitable for recreational use is irrelevant. Mount Shalko is already used for recreation, and the observatory would stop that use. This doesn’t change any of that.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic