People in the tourist industry

Answer choices

1. A

   Not a Reasoning Objection2% picked this

   No support is provided for the claim that excessive development hurts

   The authors don't need to provide support for their premises. Premises, by definition, are unsupported. We accept the legitimacy of the premises and object to the fact that even if they're true they wouldn't prove the conclusion.

   2%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match11% picked this

   That something is not the cause of a problem is used as evidence that it never

   "That X is true is used as evidence that Y" means that X is our evidence and Y is the conclusion. Was our conclusion saying "one thing never coexists with a problem"? Not really, it was saying that there's no reason to think the tourist industry will damage the seaside environment. We could try to stretch that to fit by saying, "tourist industry never coexists with damage to seaside environment", but that's a bit of a stretch. Were we to match it to our conclusion in that way, then this answer choice is saying that the evidence presented said, "The tourist industry is not the cause of damage to the seaside environment". That's actually a much closer match for the conclusion than the conclusion part of this answer was. This answer is describing an argument that sounds like this -- "Since running out of coffee is not what caused Maria's sadness, we can conclude that any time Maria is sad, she is not out of coffee." That would be arguing that since X is not the cause of problem Y, X never coexists with Y.

   11%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw7% picked this

   The argument shifts from applying a characteristic to a few members of a group to applying the characteristic to

   This describes the famous Sampling flaw, in which the argument says, "Because it was true in these cases, it will be true in all cases." There isn't any sample in this argument, though. We talk about people in the tourist industry as an entire group the whole time. We're always speaking of them as a collective group, never as a few specific members of the group.

   7%
4. D

   Correct74% picked this

   The possibility that the tourist industry would unintentionally harm the environment

   Why this is right

   The author establishes that people in the tourist industry would never knowingly do anything to hurt the seaside environment, but if they were to unknowingly harm the environment then, the author's conclusion would be wrong. Our author's conclusion is that "there's nothing to fear, when it comes to the tourist industry doing any damage to the seaside environment". This answer is objecting, "Maybe people in the tourist industry are unknowingly doing things to the seaside environment that people are concerned about. Maybe the loud music at the beach parties is sending low bass frequencies into the water and messing up manatees' communication. Just because the tourist industry doesn't think it's doing anything to damage the environment doesn't mean they definitely aren't doing any damage."

   Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   74%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw6% picked this

   The argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that as evidence that the

   This describes the semi-famous Probable vs. Certain flaw. It's saying that the premise said "X is likely" and the conclusion said, "Thus, X is definitely gonna happen." The evidence here had nothing to do with claiming a state of affairs was likely. It was a definite statement that people in the tourist industry would never knowingly damage the tourism industry / seaside environment. It's also weird to call the conclusion "a state of affair is inevitable", because the author isn't concluding that something is definitely going to happen, she's concluding that something is definitely not going to happen (the tourist industry is not going to damage the seaside environment).

   6%