Decreased reliance on fossil fuels is required if global warming is to be halted. The current reliance would decrease...

Irina on October 22, 2019

@suzanne,

The argument involves the following premises:

(1) Decreased reliance (DR) on fossil fuels is required if global warming is to be halted (GWH). Decreased reliance is a necessary condition for the global warming to be halted, thus we can diagram this premise as:

GWH -> DR

(2) Reliance would decrease (DR) if economic incentives were present (EI)

EI -> DR

(3) So ending global warming (GWH) requires economic incentives (EI)

GWH -> EI

This is an invalid argument as we cannot infer from:
(1) GWH -> DR
(2) EI - > DR

That GWH -> EI must be true. We only know that EI and GWH are both sufficient conditions for DR but we cannot infer any relationship between global warming and economic incentives. The basic structure of the argument here is:
A-> B
C->B
Therefore, A-> C.

Let's look at the answer choices:
(A) The structure here is:
A->B
C->A
Therefore, C-> B

A =poverty, B=hunger, C=unemployment
This is a valid argument.

(B) The structure here is:
A->B
B-> C
Therefore, B->A

A= exercise, B=good health, C=happy life.

This is a flawed argument but the structure is different from the stimulus, this argument commits a fallacy of mistaken reversal.

(C) A-> B
B->C
Therefore, A-> C
A=professional job, B= college, C= high school

This is again a valid argument.

(D) A-> B
C-> B
Therefore, A->C

A= improve education, B= good teachers, C=salaries

This flawed argument is identical to the stimulus and is therefore, the correct answer.

(E) A-> B
B->C
Therefore, C -> A

A= prevent abuse, B =drug education, C=cooperation

This is a fallacy of mistaken reversal and is different from the stimulus.

Let me know if this makes sense and if you have any further questions.