Weaken

Henry says that electric engines (cars) pollute less than combustion engines. Therefore, switching from regular cars to electric cars would reduce urban pollution.

This isn't a terrible argument. Car engines are a major contribution to pollution. But, Henry hasn't given an exhaustive (hehe) account of the situation. What if the production of electric engines is way more polluting than the production combustion engines? Sure using electric engines is less pollution but you gotta make them in the first place and that could tip the scales.

Umit doesn't go there, though he could have. He brings up another consideration that Henry overlooked. He reminds us that electric engines run on batteries that need charging. Charging all those batteries places greater demand on power plants which then will generate more pollution as a result.

Okay, yeah, that's a good point Umit! You did a good weakening on Henry's argument by pointing out something Henry overlooked (i.e. assumed wasn't an issue). Henry, batteries don't power themselves okay? You gotta charge them you dodo!

Alright, so now we have to do another 180 and weaken Umit's argument. We have to see that Umit assumed that the extra pollution generated by the power plants is relevant. (A) gives us a reason to think that it's not relevant. If it's true that power plants are not near major cities, then does their pollution even matter? Henry was only concerned about urban pollution after all, not pollution in the entire country or on the whole planet. (A) may as well have told us that these power plants are on Mars.

(B) is an attractive trap. It says that the additional units of pollution from the power plants would be "offset" by the decreased units of pollution from the electric engine cars. Okay, "offset" by how much? Entirely offset? Or just somewhat offset? We're not sure. So it could be on a range anywhere from entirely offset to just somewhat offset. But anywhere on that range is bad for Henry. Even if it's entirely offset, then that just means switching to electric cars is no better than not switching in the first place. Henry actually needs switching to electric cars to be better for urban pollution. Not just neutral.

What (B) needed to say is that the additional additional units of pollution from the power plants is only a tiny fraction of the total decreased units of pollution from the electric engine cars. In other words, power plants are generating +1 unit of pollution but electric cars are saving -10 units of pollution. That would help Henry and hurt Umit.


64 comments

Carrillo: Using the number of existing primate species, along with measures of the genetic diversity among these primates and among the extinct primate species, our statistical model strongly supports the conclusion that the first primate developed around 81.5 million years ago.

Olson: Given that the oldest primate fossils discovered so far date back only 55 million years, your estimate of how long primate species’ development has gone on is sheer speculation.

Speaker 1 Summary
Carrillo argues his statistical model shows that the first primates developed 81.5 million years ago.

Speaker 2 Summary
Olson believes that Carillo’s estimate is purely speculative because the oldest primate fossils found date back to 55 million years ago.

Objective
Disagreement: Carillo and Olsen disagree over whether Carillo’s model is accurate.

A
primates have been around for more than 55 million years
Carrillo agrees with this because he believes that the first primate developed around 81.5 million years ago. However, Olsen also agrees! He says that the oldest fossil dates back 55 million years, implying that the first primate was older than 55 million years old
B
Carrillo’s statistical model is a reliable way of dating the first appearance of primate species
Carrillo certainly agrees that his model is correct. Olson directly states that Carrillo's model is based on “pure speculation,” making it unreliable.
C
the available sample of primate fossils is representative of the variety of primate species that have existed
This answer choice is far too broad for either speaker to have a position on. Olson only discusses *one* fossil, while Carrillo is primarily focused on the results of his model. You have to make a lot of assumptions to make this work.
D
the dating of the primate fossils that Olson cites is accurate
Olson certainly agrees that his citation is correct. However, Carillo does not challenge or address this at all. Carillo’s discovery and Olson’s citation could both be correct. It is possible that the earliest primate fossil has never been discovered.
E
fossils of the first primate species that developed have been discovered
Carrillo does not address this statement at all, and it is implied that Olson disagrees. He acknowledges that the oldest fossils discovered “so far” date back 55 million years. He likely believes that there could be older fossils that have yet to be discovered.

10 comments