Subscription pricing
Opponent of offshore oil drilling: The projected benefits of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. ███ ███ ███████ █████ █████████ ████ █████ █████ █████████ ████████ ████ █ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ███ ████████████ ███ ███ ███ █████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ █ ████████
█████████ ██ ████████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ ███████████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████ █ ███ ████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to the drilling opponent’s claim that the benefits of drilling new oil wells are not worth the risks, the drilling proponent states that this claim is ridiculous. as evidence, the proponent points out that a similar conclusion can be made about new farms. New farms should not be allowed because no new farm can satisfy our country’s food needs for more than a few minutes.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The drilling proponent counters the position held by the drilling opponent. He does this by presenting an analogous argument with an obviously absurd conclusion.
7.
The drilling proponent's reply to ███ ████████ ████████ ████████ ██
a
offering evidence in ███████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████
b
claiming that the ██████████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ███ █████████ ██████████
c
pointing out that ███ ████████ ██████████ ████████ ██ █ ██████████████ ██ █ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ██ ███████
d
citing as parallel ██ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████
e
proposing a conclusion ████ ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████