Damming the Merv River would

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match Bad Evidence Match3% picked this

   Disease-causing bacteria in eggs can be destroyed by overcooking the eggs, but the eggs then become much less appetizing; health is more important than

   The conclusion sounds like a recommendation, whereas the original argument's was just a descriptive prediction. It's not talking about a Net Gain of something overall. That said, a certain action does have good and bad repercussions: overcooking eggs kills bad bacteria (good) but makes the eggs less appetizing (bad), but good outweighs bad (health > taste) whereas in the original bad > good. And the good and bad in the original were related to each other (more water / less water), whereas this good and bad are very different (less bacteria / less tasty).

   3%
2. B

   Bad Evidence Match4% picked this

   Increasing the price of transatlantic telephone calls will discourage many private individuals from making them. But since most transatlantic telephone calls are made by

   The action being discussed (increasing the cost of phone calls) would have a bad repercussion (discourage people from making them), but there's no good repercussion mentioned.

   4%
3. C

   Correct88% picked this

   A new highway will allow suburban commuters to reach the city more quickly, but not without causing increased delays within the city that will

   Why this is right

   A certain action does have good and bad repercussions: making new highway allows quicker commute to city (good) but also will cause increased delays in city (bad) and bad outweighs good (delays will more than offset time saved) and the conclusion says there wwon't be a net gain but overcooking eggs kills bad bacteria (good) but makes the eggs less appetizing (bad), but good outweighs bad (health > taste) whereas in the original bad > good. And the good and bad in the original were related to each other (more water / less water), whereas this good and bad are very different (less bacteria / less tasty).

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

   88%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   Doctors can prescribe antibiotics for many minor illnesses, but antibiotics are expensive, and these illnesses can often be cured by rest alone. Therefore, it

   The action being discussed (prescribing antibiotics) has a bad repercussion (expensive) but there's no good repercussion mentioned.

   2%
5. E

   Weaker Evidence Match Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   A certain chemical will kill garden pests that damage tomatoes, but that chemical will damage certain other plants more severely than the pests damage

   The conclusion is not a claim saying "there won't be a Net Gain". It's saying "there a would only be a Net Gain for things like a tomato-only garden." The action being discussed (using the chemical) would have a good repercussion (kill garden pests) and a bad repercussion (kills other plants). Those aren't good and bad along the same dimension (like more water upstream / less water downstream in the original). We do hear that the bad outweighs the good (the chemical does more damage to plants than pests do to tomatoes), but there's no way to arrive at a similar Net Gain conclusion unless you said something like, "So using the chemical would not reduce amount of damage being done in the garden as a whole".

   3%