Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents are now so high that it costs a...
RichardMay 6, 2015
Why the choice D is not correct
Two possible ways can weaken an argument, like we know. One is to show that a premise given in support of the conclusion is false. The other is to show the conclusion does not necessarily follow, even if all premises given are true.
The choice D is saying that companies may see the fines as an ordinary expense, which sounds a little bit contradictory to the premise given in the stimulus that companies value their profits. So this seems to me the first way to weaken an argument. Why this is not correct? Please help to justify it.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
As you correctly pointed out, there are two ways to weaken an argument: (1) show that a premise given in support of the conclusion is false, and (2) show that the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises given in support of the argument, even if all of those premises are true.
Every weaken question is an argument, so the first step is to identify the conclusion and premise:
Conclusion: Business that might have environmentally damaging "accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards."
Why? "Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents" are higher than the cost of the company responsible just paying "the fine it would have cost to adopt measures that would have prevented the accident." We also know that these business "value their profits."
Answer choice (D): "Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense."
There is no information in the passage that leads us to believe that companies looking at something as a business expense would not consider that amount into lost profits. Whether they consider the cost of the fines that are levied against them a business expense or not, this is still a cost that will affect their profits. And since fortifying against such an accident would cost less than incurring the fines, it makes more sense for companies that value their profits to install adequate environmental safeguards.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
RichardMay 7, 2015
Ok, I think I am clear. Thank you,
ZachyApril 26, 2018
Thanks. It becomes more and more evident how imperative it is to identify the conclusion properly.
