Subscription pricing
Land developer: By attempting to preserve endangered species that otherwise would become extinct during our lifetime, we are wasting money on species that will disappear over time regardless of our efforts. ███████████████ ████ ███████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████
█████████████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ █████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████ █ ████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The land developer claims that spending money to preserve species that are in danger of going extinct within a lifetime is a waste of money, because species are gradually going to go extinct anyway. The environmentalist responds by comparing the land developer's argument to the argument that we should not spend money to find a cure for cancer, since all humans are going to die anyway.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The environmentalist counters the land developer's argument. He does this by applying the same line of reasoning to an analogous situation — spending money to develop a cure for cancer — and showing how in that situation, the land developer's logic leads to a conclusion that seems absurd.
3.
The method the environmentalist uses ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ██
a
clarify a dilemma ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███████████ ████████
b
attack the character ██ ███ ████ █████████ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ██████
c
show that more ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██████████
d
show that the ████ ███████████ ████ ██ █████████ █████ ████ ██ ██ ████████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██ █ █████████ █████████
e
argue that there ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ ██████ █████