Self-study
It was once thought that pesticide TSX-400 was extremely harmful to the environment but that pesticides Envirochem and Zanar were environmentally harmless. ███████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ █████ ███████ █████████████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████████
Summary
The author concludes that we should either ban the legal pesticides E and Z, or else we should legalize the banned pesticide T. Why? Because pesticides E and Z are both more environmentally harmful than pesticide T.
Notable Assumptions
The author establishes that E and Z are more harmful than T, and then he jumps to the conclusion that either E and Z should be banned or T should be legalized. But he never explains when certain products ought to be banned or legalized.
The author seems to disagree with the fact that more dangerous products are legal, while a less dangerous one is banned. He must assume that a more harmful product (E/Z) shouldn’t be legal if a less harmful product (T) is illegal, or else that a less harmful product (T) shouldn’t be illegal while a more harmful product (E/Z) is legal. We need a principle that satisfies this assumption.
18.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████████
a
Two pesticides should ███ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ██ ██████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ █████ ███
This leads to the wrong conclusion. E and Z are both more harmful than T. But the doesn’t conclude that E and T should not both be legal or that Z and T should not both be legal. Instead, he concludes that E and Z should both be illegal, or else that T should be legal.
b
Two pesticides should ████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████
This is irrelevant because E and Z are both harmful to the environment. The conclusion allows for the possibility of E and Z remaining legal, even though they’re harmful. So (B) can’t describe the principle that helps justify his argument.
c
Two pesticides should ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████
The author is comparing the harmfulness of pesticides. He says that if one pesticide is more harmful than another, the more harmful one shouldn’t be legal while the less harmful one is illegal. (C) says that if two pesticides should both be illegal, then they must both be harmful.
d
One pesticide should ██ █████ ███ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████
E/Z should be legal and T illegal only if E/Z are less harmful than T. In other words, if E/Z are legal while T is illegal, then E/Z must be less harmful than T. Since E/Z are more harmful than T, this supports the conclusion that E/Z should be illegal, or else that T should be legal.
e
One pesticide should ██ █████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███
This can’t describe a principle that justifies the argument, since none of the pesticides are described as harmless. The author doesn’t compare harmful pesticides to harmless ones; he compares more harmful pesticides to less harmful pesticides.