Fossil-fuel producers say

Answer choices

1. A

   Trap3% picked this

   In the time since the chemical industry phased out CFCs, the destruction of the ozone layer by CFCs has virtually halted, but the levels

   Too Weak / Out of Scope: "CO2 levels still increasing" Since the author wants to believe that there is a feasible solution to the CO2 problem that would actually halt global warming, it somewhat strengthens to learn that the solution to the CFC problem did actually halt ozone layer destruction. The second part of this answer about CO2 levels increasing is irrelevant. The fossil industry hasn't taken an action yet, so we wouldn't expect CO2 emissions to have changed. Ultimately, this is weaker than the correct answer.

   3%
2. B

   Too Weak14% picked this

   In some countries, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the use of fossil fuels has already been reduced without prohibitive expense, but at

   This somewhat strengthens the author’s case that a CO2 solution can be feasible. The downside, “at some cost in convenience”, is phrased very weakly so it’s not much of a downside. However, “reduced” could be very different from “reduced enough to halt global warming”. Ultimately, this is weaker than the correct answer.

   14%
3. C

   Irrelevant Comparison: "contributed as greatly"2% picked this

   The use of CFCs never contributed as greatly to the destruction of the ozone layer as the carbon dioxide emitted by the use of

   This tries to compare the blameworthiness of CO2 and CFC’s in relation to the problems they influence. The author doesn’t really need that part of the analogy to line up. She just needs us to believe that just as a solution to the CFC problem was not really hopeless, a solution to the CO2 problem is not really hopeless.

   2%
4. D

   Correct61% picked this

   There are ways of reducing carbon dioxide emissions that could halt global warming without hurting profits of fossil-fuel producers significantly more than phasing out

   Why this is right

   This is a very strong idea that speaks directly to the intended similarity between the two cases: the author thinks that since the CFC problem was actually quite solvable, the CO2 problem is also probably quite solvable. This strongly corroborates that by saying “Yup, in fact it’s even easier to solve the CO2 problem than it was to solve the CFC problem”.

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

   61%
5. E

   Out of Scope: "substitutes"20% picked this

   If international agreements forced fossil-fuel producers to find ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions enough to halt global warming, the fossil-fuel producers

   The author is claiming that fossil fuel producers could reduce CO2 emissions from fossil fuels enough to halt global warming, not that fossil fuel producers could find substitutes. The author’s case would be strengthened by a conditional that said, “If fossil fuel producers were forced to solve the CO2 problem, they would find a way”. However, the author isn’t relying on the international agreements part of the analogy. It wouldn’t change the argument if a national government forced fossil fuel producers to reduce emissions. The essential part of the analogy is that the problem is solvable, if push came to shove.

   20%