Self-study
Support Industries waste large amounts of valuable water. ██████████ █████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ █████ ███████████
Argument Breakdown
The author comes to a conditional conclusion: if industries were charged full price for water, then they would soon stop wasting water. In support, the author explains that industries currently waste a lot of water. At the same time, governments subsidize industries so that they get water at a significant discount, or even for free.
The argument uses a cost-benefit model of the industries' behavior. Currently, wasting water costs very little, so industries have no reason to stop. The author predicts that if the cost of wasting water increased, that would outweigh any potential benefit, so industries would become more efficient.
Objective: Identify a Flaw
One immediate problem that might jump out is the strength of the conclusion. The author goes beyond claiming that industries would likely become more efficient to say that they would entirely cease any inefficient use of water. That's way too strong. For one thing, there could be some benefit to wasting a certain amount of water, which might still be worth it even if the cost of water increased.
15.
A flaw in the argument’s █████████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
a
presents one possible ████████ ██ █ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████
The author doesn't claim that raising the cost of water is the only possible solution. The author presents raising the cost as sufficient to stop industrial water waste, not necessary. If the conclusion would started with "only if," (A) would be correct.
b
bases its conclusion ██ ██ █████████ ██████████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████████████
The author uses "inefficient" in a consistent way throughout the argument, to mean wasting water. The author never uses "inefficient" to mean anything else.
c
draws a conclusion ████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████
The conclusion is that raising the cost of water would entirely stop industrial water waste, but the premises aren't strong enough for that. A justifiable conclusion would be that if industries had to pay full price, then they would likely reduce their inefficient water use.
d
assumes what it ████ ███ ██ █████
We can tell that the argument doesn't employ circular reasoning because none of the premises is a restatement of the conclusion. The premises offer legitimate support for the conclusion; the conclusion just goes further than the support allows.
e
offers as evidence ██████████████ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████████
The author doesn't bring up irrelevant considerations. Both of the factors mentioned (water waste and the low cost of water) are very relevant to the conclusion that water waste could be prevented by raising the cost of water.