Self-study
Economist: In order to decide what to do about protecting the ozone layer, we must determine the monetary amount of the economic resources that we would willingly expend to protect it. ████ █ █████████████ ███████ ██ █ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ █████████████████ █████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ████ ███ ████ █ ██████████ ████████ ██████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████████████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ █████ █████ ███ █ ██████████ ████████ ██████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The economist concludes that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value—i.e. the amount of money we would be willing to spend to protect it. This is supported by the claim that we wouldn’t spend all of the world’s economic resources to protect the ozone layer. This leads to the sub-conclusion that there must be an upper limit to how much the ozone layer is worth.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The economist concludes that a certain value is calculable because there is an upper limit to that value. However, even if there is an upper limit to the ozone layer’s value, that still doesn’t establish that the exact monetary value of the ozone layer can be calculated.
25.
The reasoning in the economist's ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
a
uses evidence that ███ ████████ █████ ██ █ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ████ █ ███████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ██████
The economist never discusses natural resources other than the ozone layer, nor makes any claims about other natural resources.
b
presupposes that the █████ █████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ██ █ ██████████
The economist just doesn’t conclude that the ozone layer shouldn’t be protected. The conclusion here is that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value, not whether or not we should protect it.
c
takes advantage of ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████████████ ██████
There is no ambiguity in how the term “value” is used here, by either the economist or the environmentalists. Everyone involved uses “value” to mean “monetary value” and nothing else.
d
gives no reason ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ██ █ ███████ ████████ █████ █████ █████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████ ████████ █████
The economist establishes that the ozone layer’s monetary value has an upper limit, but doesn’t give us any reason to think that that its exact monetary value can be calculated from there.
e
does not directly ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████████████
The economist does directly address the environmentalists’ argument: the environmentalists claim that the ozone layer does not have a calculable monetary value, and the economist argues directly against that claim.