Self-study
Environmentalist: Support An increased number of oil spills and the consequent damage to the environment indicate the need for stricter safety standards for the oil industry. █████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████████ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██ ██ █████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ ██ ██████ █████████ ██████████████ ███ ██████████
████████ ███████████████ ███ ████████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ████████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██████████
Structure: Counter-Argument
The environmentalist argues that the increase in oil spills shows that stricter safety standards for the oil industry are necessary. She claims that since the industry will not take action, the national government must regulate safety standards, and specifically require oil companies to put double hulls on their ships and take financial responsibility for accidents.
The oil industry representative responds that the industry alone should be in charge of devising safety standards, because it has the relevant technical and financial expertise. As an example of the importance of such expertise, he points out that the environmentalist's double-hull proposal would create more safety issues and cause an increase in costs that would harm both the industry and consumers.
Analysis: Necessary Assumption
We're looking for necessary assumptions in the environmentalist's argument. She asserts that because the industry won't take action, it has to be the national government that regulates safety standards — and she doesn't consider other regulatory alternatives, like state or local governments, for instance. So it seems like she is assuming that no other entity besides the national government can effectively regulate the oil industry. She also assumes that the increase in oil spills can in fact be addressed by implementing safety measures like double-hulled ships, and isn't the result of some unusual circumstances — say, natural disasters — that would have caused such spills regardless of the safety measures installed.
15.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████████ ████████
a
The only effective ███████ ██ █████████ ███████████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ███████████
Correct. Notice that the environmentalist's argument sets up a dichotomy: since the industry won't take action, the national government must take action. This assumes that there are no other effective sources of regulation, like state or local governments. If (A) were false — i.e., if there were other effective sources of increased stringency in safety standards, besides the industry and the national government — that would destroy the environmentalist's argument that the national government "must" regulate industry safety standards.
b
The requirement of ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██████
Incorrect. The environmentalist's argument is about safety, not about costs to the industry. So even if we negated (B) to say that the two-hull requirement would not save money over time, this wouldn't destroy the environmentalist's argument.
c
The oil industry’s █████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ █████████
Incorrect. The environmentalist doesn't make any claims about the fleet of tankers as a whole needing to be repaired or replaced.
d
Government safety regulations ███ █████████ ██ █ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ ████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ████████
Incorrect. The environmentalist assumes that the national government is the only other option besides the oil industry itself for regulating safety standards, but she doesn't make any assumptions or claims about how the government comes up with its safety standards. Even if government regulations were not developed through negotiation with industry leaders and independent experts, the environmentalist might still maintain that the government should regulate safety standards for the industry, perhaps because she believes that only government regulations will be effectively enforced. So since negating (D) doesn't destroy the environmentalist's argument, (D) isn't a necessary assumption.
e
Environmental concerns outweigh ███ █████████ ██████████████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ███████████
Incorrect. It's true that the environmentalist only mentions safety and environmental concerns, and doesn't really mention financial considerations. But precisely because of this, we can't say that the environmentalist thinks environmental concerns should outweigh all financial considerations, because we don't know how she is weighing environmental versus financial concerns in the safety regulations she proposes.
If we negated (E), it would just say that environmental concerns should not outweigh all financial standards when developing safety regulations — and it's possible, for all we know, that the environmentalist would agree that some extreme financial considerations should outweigh some less significant environmental concerns. So (E) isn't a necessary assumption.