Self-study
Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development of wetlands in industrialized nations for residential and commercial uses has endangered many species. ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ███████ ███████████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ █████████ █████ ███████████ █████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███████ █████
████████ ███████████ ███████████ █████ ███████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ██████████ █████ ████████ ███████ ███████████ █████ ███ ██████ ████████ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ████████████ ██ ████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ███████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ████
Summarize Argument
The development commission argues in favour of unrestricted wetland development in Figoria, contrary to the wildlife commission. This is because wetland development might not adversely harm wildlife, and development is necessary for economic growth. Furthermore, Figoria has as much of a right to develop wetlands as other countries that have already done so.
Notable Assumptions
The development commission assumes that an action carrying a potential environmental harm should still be undertaken if it carries a certain economic benefit. The development commission also assumes that Figoria's past conservation and other countries' past development are relevant to the question of future conservation or development in Figoria.
8.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ █████████ █████ ████ ████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████████ ████████████ ████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ████████ ████████████ █████████
a
National resources should ██ █████████ ██ █████████████ █████████ ████ ████████ ██ ███████████
The development commission argues for greater development and that Figoria has the right to govern its own resources. These points would be weakened, not strengthened, by this principle.
b
The right of ██████ ███████████ ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████
The development committee thinks development should go ahead for economic reasons. Affirming the environmental rights of future generations would only weaken the argument.
c
Only when a █████████ ██ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███████████ ███ ████ █████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███████
This tells us that if development has not yet been proven harmful to wildlife, development should go ahead. That’s exactly what the development committee assumes, so affirming it strengthens their argument.
d
Environmental regulation must ███ ██ ██████████ ███ ███████ █████████████ ██████ ███ ██████ █████ ███ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ███████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████████
This undermines the development committee's assumption that Figoria's past conversation gives it the license to develop as other countries have done. That means that this only weakens.
e
It is imprudent ██ █████ ███████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██████████
The development committee is arguing for greater use of natural resources through development. The claim that this course of action is imprudent directly undermines the argument.