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.
16.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██████████████████ ████████ ███████ ███ ████████████████████ █████████
a
Recently a double-hulled ██████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ██ ███ ███ █████████
Incorrect. You might think that (A), if anything, strengthens the environmentalist's argument and weakens the oil representative's. But this single case could be a one-off and actually doesn't do anything to undermine the industry representative's claim that the double-hull requirement creates new safety issues. So (A) doesn't weaken his argument, but it doesn't strengthen it either.
b
Proposed government regulation █████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ████████ █████ ██████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ███████████
Incorrect. (B) provides further examples of the sorts of regulations the environmentalist might advocate, without commenting on whether such regulations will be effective or not. This doesn't do anything to strengthen the industry representative's argument.
c
Proposed legislation requires ████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████ █████ ███ ████ ████████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ██ ████████
Incorrect. This just gives us more details about how the environmentalist's proposals might be implemented, without commenting on whether those proposals will be effective compared to safety regulations devised by the oil industry itself. So (C) doesn't strengthen the industry representative's argument.
d
Fumes can become ███████ ███████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ████████ ███ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██████████
Correct. This strengthens the industry representative's claim that a double-hull proposal would create more safety issues, and thus strengthens his claim that the industry should be in charge of devising safety regulations and not have external regulations imposed on it by the government.
e
From now on, ███ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ██ ███████ █ █████ ████████████ █████████ ███████ █████
Incorrect. (E) gives us an example of a regulation imposed on the industry externally, by legislation, and doesn't comment on whether such a regulation will have positive effects or not. So (E) doesn't strengthen (or weaken) the industry representative's argument.