The use of space-based satellites

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct62% picked this

   People tend to ignore possible objectionable consequences of actions that support

   Why this is right

   I doubt many of us would fall in love with this on our first pass, but we can match both halves. The environmentalists are ignoring (failing to consider) the possible objectionable consequences (the damage the spacecraft may do to the ozone layer) of actions that support their activities (sending this spacecraft into space to help environmentalists have an early-warning on a brewing environmental problem). If people tend to ignore the potential bad stuff about actions that support their activities, then it's no wonder that these environmentalists seem to be ignoring the potential damage this helpful spacecraft is doing.

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

   62%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match15% picked this

   A negative consequence of an activity may be outweighed by its

   There's no language in this answer that touches on the conclusion: - it's no wonder that environmentalists fail to consider the damage - it's unsurprising they have a blind spot to the downside - it's to be expected that someone wouldn't think about the negative This principle sounds more like it's reaching a conclusion that evaluates an activity and deems it a good thing, overall. But our conclusion was evaluating people, and concluding that these people are behaving in an unsurprising "Human nature" kind of way.

   15%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   Technology usually has at least some negative impact on the environment, even if it

   There's no language in this answer that touches on the conclusion: - it's no wonder that environmentalists fail to consider the damage - it's unsurprising they have a blind spot to the downside - it's to be expected that someone wouldn't think about the negative This principle sounds more like it's involved in concluding that the overall value of a piece of technology or the expected risk of a piece of technology. But our conclusion was evaluating people, and concluding that these people are behaving in an unsurprising "Human nature" kind of way.

   2%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion/Evidence Match12% picked this

   Even well-intentioned attempts to solve problems sometimes make

   Was there a well-intentioned attempt to solve a problem? Yes, the environmentalists are using spacecraft to try to locate, and get an early jump on fixing, environmental problems. Is the argument saying that in doing so, these environmentalists have sometimes made these environmental problems worse? No. The spacecraft may be damaging the ozone layer, but the problems they were trying to solve didn't necessarily have anything to do with the ozone layer. Also, this argument does not say the spacecraft has damaged the ozone layer. It's trying to reach a conclusion that's saying, "It shouldn't surprise us that they have asked about whether it's damaging the ozone layer."

   12%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

   Attempts to employ technology often have unforeseen consequences that may

   There's no language in this answer that touches on the conclusion: - it's no wonder that environmentalists fail to consider the damage - it's unsurprising they have a blind spot to the downside - it's to be expected that someone wouldn't think about the negative This principle sounds more like it's reaching a conclusion that talks about technology: "It's no wonder the new spacecraft ended up having some downsides to it". But our conclusion was about how people are behaving: "it's no wonder the environmentalists aren't thinking about the potential damage of this technology".

   8%