When the supply of a given resource

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact7% picked this

   The masts and hulls of some sailing ships built today are still

   Any answer dealing with those three random examples is highly suspect, since they weren't a crucial part of the author's argument. This is also incredibly weak ("some" = at least one), and the author allowed for the idea that there would be some continued use of the old resource.

   7%
2. B

   No Impact19% picked this

   There are considerably fewer mules today than there were 100

   Any answer dealing with those three random examples is highly suspect, since they weren't a crucial part of the author's argument. The author allowed for the idea that there would be some continued use of the old resource, using whatever remaining supply there is. It's very compatible with his argument to say, "yes mule supply is lower today, but mule demand is MUCH lower than before (now that we have cybertrucks), so we're doing fine in terms of sufficient mules." This gives us no way to argue that in the future we might run out of an important resource.

   19%
3. C

   No Impact2% picked this

   The cost of some new technologies is often so high that the companies developing them might actually

   The statement about high costs for new technologies doesn't refute the possibility that these technologies will eventually succeed in reducing demand for dwindling resources. The argument is not about initial costs but about the ultimate sustainability of important resources.

   2%
4. D

   Weaker Impact11% picked this

   Dwindling supplies of a natural resource often result in that resource’s costing

   This answer speaks to a potential consequence (increased cost due to dwindling supply) but doesn't directly challenge the argument that alternative technologies will reduce demand and prevent resource exhaustion over the long term. If anything, the fact that scarcity drives up the price means that people will start using that resource less and inventors will be incentivized to innovate an alternate to that resource.

   11%
5. E

   Correct61% picked this

   The biological requirements for substances like clean air and clean water are unaffected

   Why this is right

   This basically gives us a way to argue that we might, at some point, run out of an important resource. If we will always need clean air and clean water, and there's no way technology is changing that, then we could potentially run out of an important resource (like clean air or clean water) that we couldn't invent our way around. The author was counting on "alternative technologies that allow us to use a different resource, when a resource is in short supply", and this is making it sound like there would be no technology that would allow us to use an alternative to clean air or clean water, because we have biological requirements for THOSE specific resources and we can't change our body's need for them via technology. By contrast, we don't NEED flints to kill prey or NEED mules to move heavy objects. We can find other resources to address those needs. But we can't invent a way to not need clean air/water.

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

   61%