Self-study
An artificial hormone has recently been developed that increases milk production in cows. ███ ███████████ ███ ████████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ██ █████████ █████ ████ ██████████ ██████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███████████ ████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██ ████████████ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ████ █████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author concludes that lawmakers’ proposal to have milk labels list the artificial substances used in milk production should not be implemented. This is supported by some examples of unexpected information these labels would have to include, like fertilizer used to grow the cows’ feed. The examples imply that it would be too impractical to list all of the many artificial substances used in the many steps of milk production.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author counters the lawmakers’ proposal by pointing out unforeseen consequences of the proposal that would make implementing the proposal unreasonable.
7.
The argument proceeds by
a
proposing an alternative ██████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ ███████
The author doesn’t propose any alternatives, but is simply arguing against the feasibility of the entire proposal.
b
raising considerations in █████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ████████████
The author raises the consideration that a consequence of the proposal would be the absurd requirement to list substances like fertilizers and fungicides, which are technically part of the process of milk production.
c
using specific examples ██ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ ███████ █████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ████████ ███ ████████
The author doesn’t suggest any alternatives to the proposal being argued against, and only argues against the proposal on the grounds of the likely consequences of its implementation.
d
introducing a case █████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ █████████████ ██ ████ ████ █ ███████ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ ███████ █████ ██ ██████████
The author doesn’t make any analogies about a general case, and only argues that implementing the proposal would be highly unreasonable, not impossible.
e
questioning the motivation ██ █████ ███ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ ███████
The author doesn’t address the motivations of the lawmakers who made the proposal at any point, and only argues based on the likely consequences of the proposal itself.