Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The author tells us that limiting the temperature of electric stove burners to 350°C would cause fewer fires. This is supported in two ways: first, by telling us that some flammable items (oil and most fabric) need to be heated above this point to catch fire; and second, by stating that electric burners can currently go far above the temperature needed to ignite these items. By establishing that a fire risk currently exists, and that this limit would reduce or eliminate it, the author supports the conclusion that setting the limit would lead to fewer fires.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s claim about lowering fire risk: “Electric stovetop burners would cause fewer fires if their highest temperature were limited to 350°C (662°F).”
A
Electric stovetop burners would cause fewer fires if their highest temperature were limited to 350ºC.
This is where the author states the conclusion. Everything else in the argument is meant to convince us that this claim is true.
B
A maximum temperature of 350ºC provides more than enough heat for efficient and effective cooking.
This is used to explain that stoves would still be useful with the proposed limitation, but doesn’t actually form part of the argument about lowering fire risk. This is not supported by anything else, nor does it provide support to the conclusion.
C
The lowest ignition temperature for cooking oil and most common fibers is 387ºC.
This is a premise that supports the conclusion, because it shows that keeping stoves below this temperature would mean a lower risk that oil and fabric near the stove could catch fire.
D
Electric burners on high go well above 700ºC.
This is a premise that supports the conclusion, because it shows that stoves currently reach a high enough temperature to ignite some materials that might come near the burners.
E
Electric stovetop burners cause fires because they go well above 700ºC when set on high.
The argument implies that this is true, but this claim acts as support for the conclusion that limiting stovetop temperatures would reduce the number of fires. That makes it a sub-conclusion at best, not the main conclusion.
Question 22
Why is (D) wrong?
For (D), Passage B is saying "Look, you're misunderstanding progressive taxes. By that I mean you have a factually inaccurate conception of what progressive taxes are. Let me use the remaining paragraphs to give you an accurate understanding of what progressive taxes while additionally showing you why as a tax regime it's superior to flat taxes."
I think there's got to be a distinction b/t "you've stated or characterized progressive taxes inaccurately" v. "you've raised an objection to the progressive tax regime".