Self-study
S: It would be premature to act to halt the threatened “global warming trend,” since that alleged trend might not be real. █████ ████ ██████████ ████████ █████ ███ ████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ████ █████████
██ ████ ██████████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████████ ███████ ████████ █████ ██ █ █████████ █████ █████████ █████████████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███████
Objective: Describe W's Argument
W's argument is a rebuttal of S's argument, where S concludes that it's premature to address global warming. Why? Because global warming might not even be real, which is further supported by scientists' disagreement over how much warming will occur.
In response, W's argument supports the unstated conclusion that global warming is a real phenomenon, despite the disagreements S points out. To support this point, W contextualizes the scientists' disagreements: everyone agrees global warming is real, they're just arguing about how much the Earth will warm within a possible range. And they only talk about their disagreements because that's more interesting than discussing their consensus.
We're looking for an answer that accurately describes W's argument without saying anything false. It should explain that W reframes S's evidence to support a different conclusion. Keep in mind that the correct answer may or may not capture all the details of W's argument, but it will never be inaccurate.
25.
W’s rejoinder proceeds by
a
denying the existence ██ ███ █████████████ █████ ██ █
W doesn't deny that scientists disagree about the amount of expected warming. Instead, W adopts this premise, and simply contextualizes the disagreements within a broader consensus.
b
accepting S’s conclusion █████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ ██
W doesn't accept the conclusion that it's premature to address global warming. W doesn't directly weigh in on what we should do about global warming at all. Instead, W focuses on showing that global warming is real, which shows disagreement with one of S's sub-conclusions.
c
relying on authorities █████ █████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████ ██ █
W does rely on a particular authority, the International Science Council. But S doesn't cite any authorities in support, so there's no one for W's authorities to conflict with.
Even if S did cite an authority, W's evidence is consistent with S's evidence—they agree that scientists are debating the likely amount of global warming. W just adds new context to emphasize the broader scientific agreement, rather than contradicting S's evidence.
d
putting disagreements cited ██ █ ██ ███████████ ██ ███████████ ████████████
S cites scientists' disagreement about the likely extent of global warming as a reason to disbelieve that global warming is happening. W adds perspective to this disagreement by explaining that scientists get bored with discussing accepted ideas, and that there's a consensus about the likely range of warming. This emphasizes the scientists' agreement over their disagreements.
e
reasoning in a ██████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ █ ███████ ██████████
W doesn't commit circular reasoning: the factual evidence cited in W's argument is distinct from the unstated conclusion that global warming is real. Furthermore, W doesn't reject any evidence because it conflicts with that conclusion.