Self-study
Columnist: Wildlife activists have proposed that the practice of stringing cable TV lines from the same poles that carry electric power lines should be banned because cable TV lines, while electrically neutral themselves, make it easier for animals to climb near electric power lines, risking electrocution. ████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████ ████████ █████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ████ █████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ████████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The columnist concludes that, although animals are at higher risk of electrocution when cable TV lines are strung alongside electric power lines, this fact alone doesn’t show that cable TV lines should be put elsewhere. As a premise, the columnist states that putting cable TV lines elsewhere wouldn’t fully eliminate the electrocution problem, since some animals are electrocuted by power lines even without the help of cable TV lines.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The columnist argues that, although an intended solution to a problem will help alleviate the problem, said alleviation isn’t a good enough reason to take that action, because it won’t entirely eliminate the problem. This reasoning is flawed, because alleviating a problem can be a very good reason to take an action, even if the action won’t completely solve the problem!
14.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ █ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████████
a
It takes a ██████████ █████████ ███ ██ ██████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ██ █ █████████ █████████ ███ ███ █████ ███████████
The columnist’s reason for the argument’s inadequacy is neither sufficient nor necessary for the argument to be inadequate, so we’re not dealing with a flaw of sufficiency vs. necessity.
b
It rejects an ████████ ███ █ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ██████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ████████
The columnist rejects the wildlife activists’ proposal solely because it won’t completely stop animals from being electrocuted by power lines. But the proposal would still lead to fewer animal electrocutions, which could be reason enough to adopt it!
c
It fails to ████████ ███ ██████████ ████████████ ███████ ████ █ ████████ ██ ███████ █ ███████ █████ █████
The columnist did not say that the proposal shouldn’t be adopted, just that it shouldn’t be adopted based on the wildlife activists’ argument. There was therefore no need to consider any possible additional advantageous effects.
d
It rejects an ████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████████ ███ ██████████
The columnist does not criticize the wildlife activists.
e
It rejects a ████████ ██ ███████ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ █████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████
The columnist does not mention any other proposals for addressing animal electrocutions by power lines.