Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The editorial argues that the proposal to dam the river is misguided. Building the dam would have negative consequences. The dam would prevent the flow of nutrients, causing fish to feed elsewhere. The loss of the fish would cost $10 million annually (which is much more than the cost of the cleanup from flooding that the dam was built to prevent).
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the editorial’s refutation of the residents who propose damming the river: “their position is misguided.”
A
The Smithfield River should be dammed to prevent flooding.
This is the position described in the context that the editorial refutes.
B
Nutrients from the Smithfield River are essential to the local fish population.
This is unstated but shows why the fish would feed elsewhere if the nutrients were gone. It therefore contributes to the explanation of why the position is misguided. It also isn’t necessarily true - maybe the fish want, but don’t need, the nutrients.
C
Damming the Smithfield River is not worth the high construction costs for such a project.
The editorial’s argument is not about the construction costs. The editorial supports the argument that the position is misguided by showing the costs of unintended consequences.
D
For Redhook to build a dam on the Smithfield River would be a mistake.
This accurately rephrases the conclusion. The position is misguided, therefore it would be a mistake to go through with the plan.
E
The Smithfield River floods cost Redhook $3 million every year.
This is context that sets up the proposal that the editorial ultimately refutes.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the driver of the second vehicle isn’t liable for the accident. This is because the first vehicle didn’t signal before changing lanes, which is sufficient to make a driver liable for the accident.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the second vehicle wasn’t being driven in excess of the speed limit—an action sufficient to make a driver liable for the accident. If that was the case, then it would seem both drivers were at fault.
A
whether the second vehicle was being driven at excessive speed
If the second vehicle was being driven at excessive speed, that would be sufficient for the driver of that vehicle to be held liable for the accident. If the second vehicle wasn’t being driven at an excessive speed, then the author’s conclusion stands.
B
whether the driver of the first vehicle knew that the turn signal was not on
The first vehicle didn’t have its turn signal on. As far as we know, intent doesn’t matter here.
C
whether any other vehicles were involved in the accident
We don’t care about other vehicles. We already know the driver of the first vehicle was liable for the accident, and the conclusion is about the second vehicle.
D
whether the driver of the first vehicle was a reliable witness
We already know that driver didn’t have his turn signal on. We don’t need him to be a witness to anything else.
E
whether the driver of the second vehicle would have seen the turn signal flashing had it been on
We don’t care about what would’ve happened if the turn signal had been on. We know it wasn’t on.