Q responds to P’s position by

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct72% picked this

   Extending the basis for assessing the utility of complying with the

   Why this is right

   "Extending the basis" is a synonym here for "presenting new considerations". The basis that P used for assessing the utility of the new regulations was a) Would it have prevented last year's fire b) Does it address the underlying causes Assessing "utility" is the same as assessing "usefulness". Q offers some new considerations for assessing usefulness: c) Would complying with it prevent wasted money

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

   72%
2. B

   Q Doesn't Address P's Evidence4% picked this

   Citing additional evidence that undermines P’s assessment of the extent to which the new regulations would have prevented injuries

   This answer is saying that Q brings up new considerations (love it) that undermine P's claim that the new regs wouldn't have prevented injuries in last year's fire (don't love it). Did Q try to argue that the new regulations would have prevented some injuries in last year's lab fire? No, Q doesn't say anything that addresses P's evidence or the lab fire.

   4%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match7% picked this

   Giving examples to show that the uselessness of all regulations cannot validly be inferred from the uselessness of

   This answer accuses the argument of being this: "Sure, these regulations are useless, but that doesn't mean that all regulations are useless!" But Q is arguing that these regulations are not useless.

   7%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match4% picked this

   Showing that P’s argument depends on the false assumption that compliance with any regulations that would have prevented last

   The fact that this answer says that Q addressed last year's fire in any way is immediately disqualifying. According to this answer, Q thinks that P was arguing, "If a regulation would have prevented last year's fire, it would be useful" and Q attacks that assumption. Neither part of that matches up. P wasn't arguing that at all, and Q doesn't address any putative assumptions P was making.

   4%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match13% picked this

   Pointing out a crucial distinction, overlooked by P, between potential benefits

   Nothing that Q says is addressing a crucial distinction between potential benefits and actual benefits. Both P and Q are discussing potential benefits: - Could the new regulations potentially have prevented the fire or the injuries? - Could it address the underlying causes of the fire? - Could it prevent other accidents which would waste money?

   13%