Self-study
Some have argued that using food crops to produce fuel represents an unprecedented attack on the food supply. ██ █████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ █████ █████ ██ █ ████ ███ █████ ███ ██ █████████ ██████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ █ ███████ █████ ████ ███████████ ██████████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that diverting crops from the food supply to be used as fuel is not truly a radical attack on the food supply, as some people claim. The author supports this with an analogy: crops are already diverted from our food supply to feed livestock. The implication is that because diverting crops for one purpose is an accepted practice, diverting crops for another purpose is not truly "radical."
2.
The argument proceeds by
a
arguing that the ███ ████████████ ██ █ ████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ████████████ ██ ████ ████████
The author isn't making any claims about the net positive or negative effect of diverting crops. In fact, no consequences are discussed at all. So this doesn't match the argument's structure.
b
countering the charge ████ █ ████████ ███ █ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ███████████
Like (A), this doesn't reflect the argument's structure because the author doesn't actually discuss any consequences of diverting crops. The question is whether the practice is radical, not whether it's good.
c
rebutting a charge ████ █ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ████████ ███
The author concludes that the practice of diverting crops for fuel is not radical (rebutting those who make that claim), using an analogy with the existing practice of diverting crops for livestock feed. This matches the argument's structure.
d
rejecting the charge ████ █ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████
The argument is about whether diverting crops for fuel is "radical," not whether it's moral—so this doesn't match the argument. Although we see that crop diversion "seems immoral," the author never weighs in on whether it truly is or not.
e
supporting a moral █████████ ██ █ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ █████████ ████ █████████ ████ █████ ████ ███████
The author doesn't support a moral objection to the practice of crop diversion; in fact, the author doesn't take any position on morality. Also, the author tries to show that crop diversion for fuel is similar to another practice, not different.