Opponent of offshore oil drilling:

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct88% picked this

   New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that run by new

   Why this is right

   New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that run by new offshore oil drilling. This answer weakens the proponent’s analogy by pointing out a significant difference. While new oil drilling carries significant environmental risks, new farms do not pose a comparable risk. Thus, this key difference undercuts the analogy.

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

   88%
2. B

   No Impact1% picked this

   Many of the largest oil deposits are located under land that is

   No one was ever suggesting that where we drill for oil and where we farm are the same place. The proponent used farming as an analogy, but wasn't suggesting that farming involves overlapping parcels of land.

   1%
3. C

   No Impact4% picked this

   Unlike oil, common agricultural products fulfill nutritional needs rather than

   This is somewhat tempting, because it also seems to disrupt the oil / farm analogy, but the distinction has less to do with arguing that we shouldn't allow new drilling. Nutritional needs and fuel requirements are both very important things to a functioning society, so even though that's a difference between oil and farms, it doesn't hurt the proponent's analogy. He could say, "Since farming and oil drilling both provide very important things to a functioning society, and since no one farm or drilling field will be enough to support society on its own, we should approve new farms and new drilling fields."

   4%
4. D

   No Impact1% picked this

   Legislation governing new oil drilling has been much more thoroughly articulated than has that

   This is somewhat tempting, because it also seems to disrupt the oil / farm analogy, but the distinction has nothing to do with arguing that we shouldn't allow new drilling. We weren't ever saying we shouldn't allow for new drilling because "the legislation isn't thoroughly enough articulated". We were saying we shouldn't allow it because of the potential environmental damage.

   1%
5. E

   Irrelevant Comparison6% picked this

   The country under discussion imports a higher proportion of the farm products it needs than it does of

   This also presents a difference relating to oil vs farms, but we don't care about the ratio of domestic to imported oil is higher or lower than the ratio of domestic to imported farm products. The proponent was never thinking both products had a similar domestic/imported ratio. The proponent is only saying, "since no one farm is enough to supply our needs, we should approve new farms. Similarly, since no one oil field is enough to supply our needs, we should approve new oil fields."

   6%