Business owner: Although allowing coal mining in our region would create new jobs, we can expect the number of jobs i...
AndrewArabieJune 1, 2023
Where is the intermediary conclusion?
"Many local businesses depend on our region's natural beauty, and the heavy industrial activity of coal mining would force most of them to close."
These to me are premises that stand alone. I don't see how the first clause supports the second in any way.
If the argument went: "Many local business depend on our region's natural beauty. Coal mining destroys our natural beauty. Therefore coal mining would force those local businesses to close." Then I'd understand but right now they seem as stand alone premises just like question 6 on this same section of PT 87
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
This is an odd question because I would never articulate that as an intermediary conclusion, but using the because/therefore test I think we can show it is. We can say that coal mining will kill jobs because businesses depend on natural beauty, or that businesses need natural beauty, therefore, mining will kill jobs. While it is missing the premise that coal mining kills beauty (which might be common sense but I don't think it really is, because I have no clue about mining) I think it is pretty clear the author has assumed that it will.
