Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents are now so high that it costs a...
Karry-JiaoJanuary 11, 2019
Can we use cause-effect to solve this problem?
Can we regard this problem as cause-effect, in which the causes are fines are too high & companies value profit, and effect is will install safeguards? If this logic works, then why E cannot be regarded as an alternative cause? Thanks!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Great question. I wouldn't worry about trying to categorize this problem as "cause-effect." Sure, the conclusion is the purported result/effect of the premises, but to answer this question correctly, it's best to just focus on understanding the stimulus as well as possible.
The stimulus tells us that because fines are higher than the cost of adopting measures to prevent environmentally damaging accidents, business will now install safeguards since they value their profits. This seems like a reasonable argument at face value.
The question asks us to pick an answer that would weaken the argument. Maybe the fines are not actually effective in causing the businesses to install safeguards. This is one thing we can look for in the answer choices.
Answer A says businesses generally underestimate the risk of future accidents. If true, this would weaken the argument because if businesses generally underestimate the risk of accidents, then even if there is a very high risk, this may not be enough to cause the businesses to install safeguards. If the risk is, say, 10%, and the business calculates the risk at 1%, they still may not install safeguards. This is the correct answer.
Answer B is incorrect because whether businesses are as concerned with long-term profits as they are with short-term profits is irrelevant to the content of the stimulus. We can get rid of this choice.
Answer C is incorrect because this goes in-line with what the author says in the stimulus, so it does not weaken the argument.
Answer D is incorrect because the manner in which business treat fines has nothing to do with the argument that the high cost of fines will cause businesses to install safeguards.
Answer E is incorrect because it deals with a topic, promotion, that is irrelevant to the content of the argument. If E were true, the author's argument that the high cost of fines will influence businesses to install environmental safeguards would not be weakened. Because this answer is irrelevant, we can eliminate it.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
Karry-JiaoJanuary 13, 2019
Thanks for your explanation! It is very helpful!
ShirnelMay 6, 2020
Hi Ravi,
I understand your explanation with the exception of one thing. Should answer choice A: Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents.
