Self-study
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
The drilling proponent implicitly claims the opponent offers poor support when she claims new offshore wells aren’t worth the risk. He supports his criticism with an analogy: like farms, he argues, new wells shouldn’t be considered too risky just because each one makes a small contribution to the country’s overall consumption.
Notable Assumptions
The drilling proponent assumes that a new well and a new farm carry roughly equal risk, and that a new well makes at least as big a contribution to the country’s oil needs as a new farm makes to its food needs.
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 ████ ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████