Self-study
Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. ███ ███ ███████ █████ █████████ ████ █████ █████ █████████ ████████ ████ █ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ████████████ ███ ███ ███ █████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ████████
█████████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████ █ ███ ████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The opponent of offshore drilling argues that the benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas do not outweigh the risk of environmental disaster from drilling those wells. As evidence, she points to the fact that the wells already in those areas only provide 4 percent of the country's daily oil needs, and the new wells would add less than one percent.
The drilling proponent counters this argument with an analogy meant to show that the opponent's reasoning doesn't make sense. By the opponent's logic, it would be possible to conclude that new farms should not be allowed, since any given new farm could supply no more than a tiny fraction of the country's total food needs. By using an analogous argument where the conclusion is clearly unreasonable, the drilling proponent undermines the opponent's reasoning.
8.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████████ ██████
a
New farms do ███ ███████ █ ████ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ███ █████████
Correct. As we discussed in our analysis, (A) points out an important difference between new oil wells and new farms that makes the proponent's analogy much less relevant: new oil wells carry a much more significant risk than new farms.
b
Many of the ███████ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████
Incorrect. The discussion is about offshore oil drilling, not drilling under land.
c
Unlike oil, common ████████████ ████████ ███████ ███████████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ █████████████
Incorrect. The specific needs fulfilled by agricultural products versus oil aren't as relevant to undermining this analogy as pointing out the different risk/benefit calculations that apply to new oil wells versus new farms.
d
Legislation governing new ███ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ████ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ██████
Incorrect. The legislation that applies to new oil drilling versus new farms isn't relevant to this discussion.
e
The country under ██████████ ███████ █ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ██████
Incorrect. The point of the proponent's analogy is to expose the weakness of an argument based only on the size of marginal benefits: the benefit of one new farm or one new oil well. To undermine the analogy, the opponent needs to point out that the risk/benefit considerations in the two scenarios aren't analogous, not point out that in reality the country imports a higher proportion of farm products than of oil.