Near-Earth objects (NEOs) such as asteroids threaten the Earth because they have the potential to collide with it. The goal of NEO research is to develop measures to counteract a possible hit by a sizable NEO. Government funding of this research is not a waste of money. Buying home insurance makes good fiscal sense, and governments fund NEO research for the same reason that people insure their homes.

Summarize Argument
The funding of NEO research to protect Earth from asteroid collisions is not a waste of money because buying home insurance to protect your home makes good economic sense.

Identify Argument Part
This statement connects the analogy of home insurance making good fiscal sense to the conclusion that government funding of NEO research is not a waste of money.

A
It connects an analogy made in the argument to the argument’s conclusion.
The statement connects the analogy (buying home insurance) to the conclusion that funding NEO research makes good fiscal sense.
B
It is the overall conclusion of the argument.
The statement is not the overall conclusion of the argument. It does not receive any support.
C
It defines a key term used in a premise of the argument.
The statement does not define any key terms.
D
It provides a contrast to the situation that is the main focus of the argument.
The statement does not provide a contrast to the situation. It tries to make the situations more similar.
E
It is a general principle for which the argument attempts to provide support.
The statement is not a general principle, and the argument does not try to support it. The statement is used to support the argument’s main conclusion.

24 comments

Rhett: Otto gives me a ride to work every morning and expects me to help pay for fuel. But I shouldn’t have to pay. Giving me a ride doesn’t increase the amount he spends on fuel, since he has to go right by my house anyway.

Barbara: By that flawed logic, you would be entitled to the warm air that heats the unused spare room of my house, if you could divert it to your house without increasing my expenses.

Speaker 1 Summary
Rhett concludes that he shouldn’t have to help pay for the fuel requires for Otto to give Rhett a ride to work. This is because Otto doesn’t have to use any extra fuel from providing Rhett a ride to work.

Speaker 2 Summary
Barbara’s implicit conclusion is that Rhett should have to help pay for the fuel used by Otto. Barbara compares Rhett’s argument to the flawed argument that one can use another’s unused warm air for free if one can divert it without causing expense to the owner of the warm air.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. Rhett thinks he shouldn’t have to help pay for fuel. Barbara thinks he should.

A
Otto requires Rhett to help pay for fuel for the ride to work
Not a point of disagreement. Barbara doesn’t comment on what Otto requires of Rhett.
B
Rhett should have to help pay Otto’s fuel expenses
This is a point of disagreement. Rhett thinks he shouldn’t have to pay, because Otto doesn’t use any more fuel from picking up Rhett. Barbara’s implicit conclusion is that Rhett should have to help pay.
C
giving Rhett a ride to work increases Otto’s fuel expenses
Barbara doesn’t express an opinion about this. She responds to Rhett’s argument by comparing it to an analogous, flawed argument. But she doesn’t comment on the truth of Otto’s premises.
D
Rhett is entitled to the warm air that heats Barbara’s unused spare room
Rhett doesn’t express an opinion about this. He doesn’t say anything suggesting a view about the analogous argument brought up by Barbara.
E
Rhett could divert to his house the warm air that heats Barbara’s unused spare room without increasing her expenses
Rhett doesn’t express an opinion about this. He doesn’t say anything suggesting a view about the analogous argument brought up by Barbara.

11 comments