Self-study
Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. ███ ███ ███████ █████ █████████ ████ █████ █████ █████████ ████████ ████ █ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ████████████ ███ ███ ███ █████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ████████
█████████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████ █ ███ ████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The opponent of offshore drilling argues that the benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas do not outweigh the risk of environmental disaster from drilling those wells. As evidence, she points to the fact that the wells already in those areas only provide 4 percent of the country's daily oil needs, and the new wells would add less than one percent.
The drilling proponent counters this argument with an analogy meant to show that the opponent's reasoning doesn't make sense. By the opponent's logic, it would be possible to conclude that new farms should not be allowed, since any given new farm could supply no more than a tiny fraction of the country's total food needs. By using an analogous argument where the conclusion is clearly unreasonable, the drilling proponent undermines the opponent's reasoning.
7.
The drilling proponent's reply to ███ ████████ ████████ ████████ ██
a
offering evidence in ███████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████
The drilling proponent does not offer any evidence in support of drilling. The proponent’s argument is entirely focused on undermining the opponent's reasoning, not on making a positive case for the benefits of drilling.
b
claiming that the ██████████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ███ █████████ ██████████
The proponent does not claim that the opponent’s cited statistics are inaccurate. He just thinks that they don't justify the opponent's conclusion that drilling in these areas is not worth it.
c
pointing out that ███ ████████ ██████████ ████████ ██ █ ██████████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ██ ███████
The drilling proponent never says that the opponent's way of arguing is often legitimate, but misapplied in this case. If anything, the proponent's use of an analogy to criticize the opponent's reasoning, as applied to a different context, suggests that the proponent thinks this method of reasoning is generally flawed.
d
citing as parallel ██ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████
This is correct. The parallel argument is the argument that new farms should not be allowed, because each new farm provides only a small fraction of the country's total food needs. The conclusion of that argument is unsupported by the evidence cited for it, in the same way the drilling opponent’s conclusion is unsupported by the evidence the opponent cites.
e
proposing a conclusion ████ ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████
The drilling proponent does not propose a different conclusion based on the same evidence provided by the opponent. The proponent isn't focused on offering an alternative argument, just exposing the flawed reasoning in the opponent's argument.