Mark: Plastic‐foam cups, which

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact6% picked this

   The use of energy for chain saws that cut down trees and for trucks that haul logs is part of the

   This seems to just break down the energy used to make paper into a couple line items, but this has no comparative value in terms of us arguing "plastic is worse than paper".

   6%
2. B

   Opposite1% picked this

   Foam cups are somewhat more acceptable to consumers than paper cups because of their

   This indicates a mild consumer preference for plastic-foam, so not only is it irrelevant to the environmental-impact debate that we're really having, it also goes in the wrong direction. We're trying to argue "plastic is worse than paper", so we don't want to hear that consumers slightly prefer plastic.

   1%
3. C

   Correct80% picked this

   The production and transportation of petroleum occasions serious environmental pollution, but the energy that runs paper mills now comes from burning

   Why this is right

   This addresses one of Tina's pieces of evidence as makes that piece of evidence less compelling. She was stressing the environmental damage of paper in part by citing how, "A study done 5 years ago showed that making paper burned more petroleum than was used for foam cups". But this answer is saying that's not a relevant premise any more. The energy that runs paper mills now comes from burning waste wood, not petroleum. Meanwhile, plastic does still use petroleum (we're assuming), and producing and transporting petroleum results in serious environmental pollution. So, Mark can argue "plastic is worse than paper", insofar as plastic requires us to produce/transport petroleum (which sometimes has serious environmental damage), whereas paper mills can run off burning waste wood.

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

   80%
4. D

   Opposite8% picked this

   The amount of styrene escaping into the environment or remaining in foam cups after their

   Mark was trying to argue that "plastic is worse than paper" in large part because of the danger of styrene, involved in plastic manufacturing. This answer is muting the impact of Mark's premise, saying that the amount of styrene that escapes is negligible. So this weakens Mark and helps Tina.

   8%
5. E

   Opposite4% picked this

   Acre for acre, tree farms for the production of wood for paper have fewer beneficial effects on the environment than do

   This answer is saying that tree farms used for paper production aren't as beneficial as natural forests that remain uncut. This would strengthen the position of someone saying, "It's bad that we produce paper! We should leave forests uncut so that we get their full environmental benefits" But that's Tina's side. We want an answer saying plastic is bad.

   4%