Self-study
Support Since the 1970s, environmentalists have largely succeeded in convincing legislators to enact extensive environmental regulations. ████ ██ █████████████████ ██████████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████ █████████████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████████ █████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that more environmental regulations will not help the environment. This is based on the fact that extensive environmental regulations have been enacted since the 1970s, but the condition of the environment during that time has worsened.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that the environment would have been damaged even more had the environmental regulations not been enacted. It’s possible that the environmental regulations have helped slow the pace of decline, which shows that we cannot point to the declining environment and conclude from it that more environmental regulations won’t help.
2.
The argument's reasoning is flawed ███████ ███ ████████
a
attacks the environmentalists ██████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████████
Although the author mentions the environmentalists have insisted upon something, that isn’t an attack on the environmentalists’ character, background, or behavior. The premises simply point out that regulations have been passed, and the environment has declined during that time.
b
presumes, without providing ████████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ █████████████ ███████████ █████ ███████ █████████████ ███████████
The author doesn’t indicate that removing regulations are the only way to prevent further decline. The conclusion is is merely that more environmental regulations aren’t going to help. Perhaps keeping the same level of regulations and doing something else is the solution.
c
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████████ ███████████
The author fails to consider that the environment could have worsened even more without the regulations that were passed. In other words, the regulations could have helped the environment, even if the environment worsened.
d
fails to justify ███ ███████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ███████████ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████████
The author doesn’t advocate for reducing regulations. The conclusion is merely that more regulations will not help. Also, the argument isn’t based on the “importance” of one thing over another thing.
e
fails to consider ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████████████████ █████████
The argument doesn’t need to consider the views of the environmentalists’ opponents. There’s nothing flawed about making an argument without considering other groups’ views.