Self-study
Politician: Critics of the wetlands-protection bill are delaying passage of this important legislation merely on the grounds that they disagree with its new, more restrictive definition of the term “wetlands. ███ ████ ████ ████ █████ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███████████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████
Objective: Identify a Flaw
The politician concludes that, by delaying a wetlands-protection bill just because it narrows the definition of "wetlands", critics of the bill show they don't actually care about the wetlands. The politician supports this conclusion by pointing out that the bill strengthens the limitations on developing wetlands.
What the politician is really trying to suggest is that the bill is good for the wetlands—hence the conclusion that critics don't really care about the wetlands. But the politician doesn't consider the effect of narrowing the definition of "wetlands". What's the point of stronger protections for land that's no longer protected at all?
17.
The politician’s reply to the █████████ ██ ███ ███████████████████ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
It falsely identifies ███ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████████████████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ █████████████
The politician doesn't discuss people who are opposed to conservation in general. To say that the politician equates the motives of these two groups, we would need to make a baseless assumption about the motives of those who oppose conservation. In fact, the politician doesn't directly discuss the motives of the critics either—so we'd need to assume that too.
(A) is a trap answer that goes beyond the actual scope of the argument. The politician is just claiming that the critics don't really care about wetlands. There's no mention of motives, nor of the critics' broader attitude to conservation. So (A) ends up inaccurately describing the argument.
b
It does not ██████████ █████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████████████
The politician equivocates between two key ideas: the bill creating stronger protections for wetlands, and the bill being good for wetlands overall. But by narrowing the definition of "wetlands", it's actually very possible that the bill harms wetlands which will no longer be protected. And that throws the politician's conclusion into question—maybe the critics actually are protecting wetlands.
c
It assumes without █████████████ ████ █████ ███ ██████████ ███ ███████████████████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████████
The politician never brings the idea of profit into the discussion. There's no suggestion that the critics have a conflict of interest, just that they're not genuine wetland supporters.
d
It fails to ███████ █ ███████ ███ █ ████ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ███████████████
The politician isn't the one supporting a less restrictive definition, the critics are. So there's no need for the politician to defend a less restrictive definition.
e
It attempts to ██████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ████ █████████ ███ ████ ███████
The politician never mentions the author of the bill. There's no appeal to authority in this argument.