Plant manager: We could greatly reduce the amount of sulfur dioxide our copper-smelting plant releases into the atmosphere by using a new process. ███ ███ ███████ ████████ █████████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ █████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████
███████████ █ █████ ████ ████ ███████ ███████████ ███ ████████ █████ ███ █████ ███ █████ █████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████████ ███ █████████ ███████████████
The plant manager says that switching to a new copper-smelting process would be expensive and unprofitable. How do we know? First, the new equipment is expensive. Second, the new process costs more to run. This second point is a sub-conclusion, which is supported by an explanation that the new process requires cooling then reheating copper. This presumably costs more than heating it only once.
The supervisor disagrees with the plant manager that the new process has higher running costs. This isn’t explicitly stated, but is implied by the support the supervisor gives: that the new process is very fuel-efficient. We can infer that this supports a disagreement about the running cost because it would allow savings on fuel. There's no other part of the plant manager's argument that would be affected.
This response also reveals a vulnerability in the plant manager's argument. The plant manager's conclusion is about the overall cost of adopting this new process. However, we can now see that the plant manager only accounts for the costly elements of the new process, and doesn't consider any new savings, such as fuel efficiency.
The plant manager's argument is ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████
The overall conclusion ██ █████ █ ███ ██████ ███ ██ █████ ██████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████
The plant manager's conclusion is about profitability, which is a net concept: revenues minus costs. However, the plant manager only considers costly factors of the new process. As the supervisor points out, the process might generate savings as well, such as through fuel efficiency. Without considering these potential savings, the plant manager can't get a full picture of the profit impact.
The support for ███ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ █████████████ ██████████ █████████
The plant manager relies on independently verifiable evidence: it's entirely possible to check how the new process would work, and whether it costs more to reheat copper after cooling. The plant manager doesn't make any appeal to authority, including the plant manager's own authority.
The overall conclusion ███████ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████ ████████
This is not a circular argument, because the evidence is distinct from the conclusion. The evidence is about certain costs of a new process, and the conclusion is about the profitability of adopting the process.
Evidence that is █████ ██ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███ █████ ███ █ █████ ████ █████████ ██ ██████████ █████
The stimulus doesn't give us a reason to question the plant manager's evidence. It seems almost indisputable that cooling and reheating copper would cost more than heating it only once, and that the new equipment is expensive. The issue is that the plant manager overlooks relevant factors, not that the factors considered are unreliable.
Facts that are ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███████████
The plant manager relies on relevant facts—the problem is that some relevant facts aren't considered, not that there are irrelevant facts involved. All the plant manager's evidence relates to the costs of the new process, which is entirely relevant to profitability.