Magazine article: The Environmental Commissioner's new proposals are called "Fresh Thinking on the Environment," and ...

Naz August 29, 2015

The conclusion isn't that since Tsarque Inc. marked the program as a disaster there is no debate, we are saying that since the program is virtually identical to a program issued by Tsarque Inc, which is a company whose polluting has marked it, i.e. Tsarque Inc., as an environmental nightmare, we should not pursue any further nationwide debate about the environmental commissioner's new proposal.

Thus, the argument is making a conclusion about the new proposal not because of what is in the proposal, but because a source that it is from, i.e. Tsarque's identical program, is an environmental nightmare. No one's authority is being appealed to in this argument.

Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Ashley-Tien July 1, 2018

Why is C incorrect? Isn't the argument pointing to the fact that since Tsarque Inc was the source, so no debate should be pursued?

Ashley-Tien July 1, 2018

Sorry, I just saw that C was the correct answer; I was stuck between A and C though. How can I be sure that A was incorrect?

Mehran July 1, 2018

Hi @Ashley-Tien, thanks for your post.

Let's first asses the stimulus carefully (as always).

What is the conclusion? "in our opinion the 'nationwide debate' [on the Environmental Commissioner's new proposals] can end here."

Why? What premise(s) support(s) this conclusion? "Since Tsarque Inc.'s polluting has marked it as an environmental nightmare. . ."

OK, so that premise does not necessarily support this conclusion. The question stem asks you to identify the flawed method of reasoning.

Answer choice (C), the correct answer, says that the argument errs by dismissing the proposals because of their source, rather than because of their substance. That is precisely what happens here. The magazine dismisses the Environmental Commissioner's new proposals because they are virtually identical to those issued before by Tsarque, and Tsarqe is a polluting "environmental nightmare." But even terrible people and terrible companies can sometimes have good ideas. Dismissing the proposal outright because of their source, rather than analyzing them on their merits, is flawed reasoning.

Answer choice (A) can be eliminated for several reasons. First of all, it doesn't address the flaw in the method of reasoning - that is, the flaw in the link between the premise and the conclusion. Rather, (A) focuses only on background information in the stimulus. That's not a flaw in reasoning. You need to focus on both the premise(s) and the conclusion. (Answer choice (A) is also wrong because of the "without any justification." The stimulus indicates that, in addition to the text of the proposals, Tsarque's chief is a close friend of the Environmental Commissioner's. There is some basis for the view that Tsarque's proposal influenced the Environmental Commissioner's. But again, the argument here is not advocating dismissing that proposal outright because of the influence the first text had on the second; it is advocating dismissing the proposal outright just because Tsarque is an "environmental disaster").

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.