Self-paced
Charles: Support During recessions unemployment typically rises. █████ ██████ █ █████████ ███ █████████ ███ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██████████ █████ █████ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ████ ████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ████ █████
██████ ███ █████ ████ ███ █████████ █████ █████████ ██████ █ █████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Charles argues that since unemployment rises in a recession, fewer people commute in cars to work. Therefore, Charles concludes, since cars are used less, air pollution from car exhaust must decrease in a recession.
Darla questions Charles's conclusion by bringing up another point. Not as many people can afford to buy new cars in a recession, and cars emit more pollutants as they age. So even if cars aren't being used as often as before, they might be emitting more pollutants per use during a recession, which would weaken Charles's conclusion and make it less clear what the net effect of a recession on exhaust pollution would be.
14.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ █████████ ████████ ████████
a
People who have █████ ████ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██████ █ █████████ ████ ████ █████ ██████████
Incorrect. Imagine negating (A): "People have never been employed drive less frequently during a recession than they would otherwise." Charles doesn't talk about people who have never been employed, and we don't know how much those people contribute to air pollution from automobile exhaust. But if they are another group that drives less during a recession, that would strengthen Charles's argument, not undermine it. So because (A) doesn't destroy the argument when negated, (A) isn't a necessary assumption.
b
Most air pollution ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██ █████
Incorrect. (B) talks about "air pollution" in general, whereas the argument is specifically about air pollution caused by automobile exhaust. Nothing in the argument requires exhaust from cars used by people commuting to work to cause most air pollution in general.
BUt even if (B) were only about air pollution from automobile exhaust, it wouldn't be a necessary assumption. Even then, if (B) were false — i.e., if not most, or less than half, of air pollution from exhaust were caused by cars used by people commuting to jobs — it could still be true that a decline in automobile exhaust from people commuting to work during a recession would cause a decline in pollution from exhaust overall, as long as the other sources of exhaust contributed the same amount as before, or decreased. So negating (B) in this case would still not destroy the argument.
c
Most people who ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ██████████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ █████
Incorrect. If we negate (C), we get "few people who are employed do not use any form of public transportation to commute to their jobs," or "most people who are employed use at least some form of public transportation to commute to their jobs." But even if this is true, as long as some people who are employed drive to work, it could still be true that pollution from exhaust would go down during a recession if some of those people stopped driving to work. Negating (C) doesn't destroy the argument, so (C) isn't what we're looking for.
d
During a recession, █████████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ███ █████ ████████
Correct. This is one of the assumptions we identified in our analysis. If we negate (D), we get: "During a recession, decreases in the use of cars resulting from reductions in commuting to jobs are offset by increased use of cars for other reasons." If this is true, then Charles's argument falls apart.
e
During a recession, █ ██████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ █████
Incorrect. For Charles's argument to hold, it doesn't have to be a higher proportion of people who drive to work who lose their jobs versus people who don't drive to work. As long as some people who drive to work end up not driving to work, and that decrease in exhaust is not offset by some other increase, then Charle's argument could still be valid. So (E) isn't a necessary assumption.