Researchers have developed a membrane

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct83% picked this

   address the expense of building or refitting a refrigerator with the

   Why this is right

   This addresses the Net Gain / Loss issue of whether you'd actually end up saving money in the long run. Yes, you might save on energy costs for the years of usage, but the new technology is crazy expensive to build, or to add to your existing fridge. Since the author said, "over the long run", we might be kind of annoyed at this answer, like, "How is it a good objection to talk about the up front costs, if the conclusion is about the long run?" But think about trying this in real life -- putting an airtight membrane on a fridge with an oxygen removing vacuum? Let's say that's a $10,000 fridge, whereas a normal one would be $1,000. Even if you're saving money on your energy bill each month, is it really going to be less expensive over the long-run to buy this $10,000 anti-oxygen fridge? In order for an author to logically prove a Net Gain / Loss conclusion, she would have to mention all the gains (such as "energy costs will be reduced") and all the losses (such as "building / retrofitting this type of fridge will definitely cost some extra money").

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

   83%
2. B

   Out of Scope: discomfort2% picked this

   address the possibility of consumer discomfort with the

   The conclusion is purely about dollars and cents, not about how much people like these new fridges. We can only argue with the author by bringing up stuff that would allow us to say that you wouldn't save money in the long run, by buying one of these fridges. Consumer "discomfort" doesn't have any concrete connection to saving money.

   2%
3. C

   Not an Objection2% picked this

   explain the technology that enabled the oxygen-removing membrane to

   It is true that the author didn't explain the origin story of this technology, but there's no reason the author needs to do that. The author's conclusion rests on the truth value of money saved vs. spent, by using this new model. An explanation of the technology that went into the development of this membrane is irrelevant; we only care about how the costs of this new fridge compare to the costs of the current models.

   2%
4. D

   Contradicted, if anything Not an Objection12% picked this

   take into account the effectiveness of current refrigerator technology in preventing

   It feels like argument does consider the current model's effectiveness at preventing food spoilage. The current models are less effective at preventing spoilage, because there is bacteria in the current models. The new models will remove the oxygen, which will kill the bacteria, so it will enable food to be stored almost indefinitely. We know that we can't currently store food almost indefinitely, so the author is communicating how much more effective this new type of fridge would be at preventing food spoilage. At any rate, even if both types of fridges were equally effective at preventing spoilage, the fact that the new type of fridge can achieve that spoilage-prevention at a warmer temperature (and thus incur lower energy costs) would still allow the author to say that the new fridge is cheaper in the long run.

   12%
5. E

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   take into account the inconvenience caused by food spoilage in

   The author doesn't directly address the inconvenience cause by food spoilage, but so what? The author is trying to prove that the new fridge will be cheaper in the long run. Does the inconvenience of food spoilage have a cost? No, not if we just mean the disappointment of seeing our leftovers are no loner edible. And if the inconvenience of spoiled food turns into us having to go to the store to buy replacement food, then talking about this would only strengthen the author's case. She'd say .... "not only do you save on energy costs with the new fridge -- you also save money on buying new food to replace the food that spoiled."

   1%