Self-study
Politician: Support Tightening air quality standards that regulate industrial emissions would cause industries to move to locations with less stringent standards concerning these emissions. ██ ███████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████ █████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ██ ███████ █████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ███████ ███ █████████ █████ ██████████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████████
Summary
The author concludes that current air quality standards should not be raised.
Why?
Because because raising air quality standards would cause industries to move away, and there’s not enough evidence that the decreased pollution that would result from those higher standards would compensate for the jobs lost from the loss of those industries.
Notable Assumptions
Notice that we don’t have any premise that tells us when standards “should” not be raised. Let’s look for a bridge from the premise to the conclusion. For example:
If we don’t have enough evidence that the benefits of doing something would outweigh the costs, then we shouldn’t do the thing.
12.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██████████
a
Governmental policy should █████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████
Too weak. (A) tells us how policy should “generally” be designed. But it doesn’t help establish what should be done with emissions standards in this case. There might be other considerations (decreasing pollution) that could justify designing policy differently.
b
The extent to █████ ███ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ █ ████████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ███████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████
Starts in the wrong place and ends in the wrong place. The reasoning of the argument had nothing to do with the willingness of people to accept stricter emissions standards. And, keeping a policy in its current form doesn’t constitute the “adoption” of a policy.
c
Governmental policy should ██ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ █████ ███
Establishes a bridge from the premise to the conclusion. Rephrased, (C) tells us that if we don’t have compelling evidence that the consequences of changing a policy are better than the consequences of leaving the policy the same, then we shouldn’t change the policy. The premise establishes that we don’t have enough evidence that higher air standards would help more than the job loss from those higher standards would hurt. (C), then, allows us to conclude that we shouldn’t change the air standards.
d
Governmental policy should ██ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ █████████████
Reaches the wrong destination. (D) dells us when governmental policy should be changed. But it doesn’t tell us when governmental policy should not be changed.
e
If one lacks █████ ████████ █████ ███████ █ █████ ██████ ████ ████ █ █████████ ████████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ███████████ ████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████
Starts at the wrong place and reaches the wrong place. Knowing that we should make a particular assumption as part of the decision-making process does not tell us what the decision should be. And, we don’t lack clear evidence of the consequences of keeping standards the same. (We lack clear evidence regarding how to weigh the consequences.)