In several countries, to slow global

Answer choices

1. A

   Strengthens, not Necessary9% picked this

   trees not only absorb carbon dioxide but also

   The author doesn't need to assume that trees emit CO2. This answer would strengthen the argument, because it would help us say that "incentives to plant trees lead to more trees emitting CO2, which hastens global warming". But this doesn't need to be true. It's possible that the author is just thinking, "Were it not for these incentives, the farmers would be growing native grasses, which absorb more CO2 than trees do. By introducing incentives to plant trees, the government is causing farmers to switch to a method that will be worse for (hasten) global warming." In short, the author doesn't need trees to emit CO2 to argue that they're hastening global warming. His argument can get by on the idea that trees store less CO2 than the alternative.

   9%
2. B

   Too Strong: most / unless6% picked this

   most farmers do not plant any trees on their land unless there is an incentive

   The author doesn't need to assume anything about what most farmers usually do in regards to incentives. She's only making an argument about the effects of this one specific incentive. In order for her conclusion to be true, for these incentives to be having an effect on global warming, she does have to assume that "at least some farmers planted trees because of this incentive".

   6%
3. C

   Out of Scope: deforested Opposite2% picked this

   land that has been deforested seldom later sustains

   This answer is talking about a situation in which you have an area that used to have trees but no longer does (deforested). Once the trees are gone, will that land one day see thriving native grasses? This is way too specific a scenario for us to know how the author would judge it. If we were guessing, the fact that she's complaining about planting trees and highlighting native grasses as a superior alternative, we'd probably guess that she thinks, "Don't plant trees here! Let native grasses grow in, since they're better at capturing CO2 than trees are." In that sense, this answer is the opposite of what she'd be assuming, but more importantly we're totally speculating what she'd be assuming because the argument doesn't get this specific.

   2%
4. D

   Correct81% picked this

   some of the trees planted in response to the incentives are planted where native grasses

   Why this is right

   On Necessary Assumption, we're wary of strongly worded answers and very receptive to weakly worded answers or ruling-out language like "not". This is lovably weak: some. When we negate some, we get none. If this answer were not true, it would mean that "none of the trees that have been planted in a place where we'd otherwise get native grasses". That would definitely weaken the author's argument. If we're comparing "planting trees vs. planting nothing" then trees are good for global warming! It's only if, as the author is assuming, we're comparing "planting trees vs. having native grasses" that trees are bad for global warming. So this answer is confirming that the author is looking at a situation where, "If we didn't have trees, we'd have native grasses", thus incentivizing trees is doing something negative for global warming.

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

   81%
5. E

   Too Strong: few2% picked this

   few if any governments have been interested in promoting the growth

   The author is only talking about several countries where the government is offering incentives to plant trees. Even in these countries, it would be a stretch to say "the government has no interest in promoting native grasses". But beyond that, we're only hearing about several countries (out of ~200 countries in the world). So the author doesn't need to assume that few (under 50%) of countries are interested in native grasses. If we negated this and said, "hey, author, 51% of countries are actually interested in promoting the growth of native grasses", it wouldn't be any sort of objection to her argument. She's only arguing that these three governments are offering incentives that are bad for global warming.

   2%