Subscription pricing
Economist: In order to decide what to do about protecting the ozone layer, we must determine the monetary amount of the economic resources that we would willingly expend to protect it. ████ █ █████████████ ███████ ██ █ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ █████████████████ █████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ████ ███ ████ █ ██████████ ████████ ██████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████████████ █████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ █████ █████ ███ █ ██████████ ████████ ██████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The economist concludes that the ozone layer has a calculable monetary value—i.e. the amount of money we would be willing to spend to protect it. This is supported by the claim that we wouldn’t spend all of the world’s economic resources to protect the ozone layer. This leads to the sub-conclusion that there must be an upper limit to how much the ozone layer is worth.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The economist concludes that a certain value is calculable because there is an upper limit to that value. However, even if there is an upper limit to the ozone layer’s value, that still doesn’t establish that the exact monetary value of the ozone layer can be calculated.
25.
The reasoning in the economist's ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████████
a
uses evidence that ███ ████████ █████ ██ █ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ████ █ ███████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ██████
b
presupposes that the █████ █████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████ █████ ██ █ ██████████
c
takes advantage of ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████████████ ██████
d
gives no reason ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ██ █ ███████ ████████ █████ █████ █████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████ ████████ █████
e
does not directly ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████████████