Chemical-company employee

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: hostile1% picked this

   The conservation group that produced the study is not hostile to

   The author is certainly assuming that this data is trustworthy, but that doesn't mean that she has to assume that the environmental conservation group behind the study is not hostile towards the chemical industry. If they are hostile, that doesn't weaken the argument. They can still conduct an accurate study, even while being not a fan of the chemical industry.

   1%
2. B

   Weakens3% picked this

   The employee's company does not produce chemicals whose processing naturally produces more pollutants than the chemicals produced by

   This answer weakens, so it can't be right. If we negated this, we'd be saying "this company does produce chemicals whose processing naturally produces more pollutants". That would strengthen the argument that this company releases more pollutants than most chemical companies this size.

   3%
3. C

   Out of Scope: large companies5% picked this

   The total pollution produced by all small chemical companies combined is not greatly outweighed by that produced

   This evidence (the study) and the conclusion are exclusively about small chemical companies. So there aren't any assumptions being made about what large chemical companies do or about how they compare.

   5%
4. D

   Correct81% picked this

   The four other companies mentioned by the employee do not together account for very close to 60 percent of the total

   Why this is right

   Like all the other answer choices here, this has the lovable "not" look of a Defender answer, so our primary move is to negate it by removing the "not" and seeing if it weakens. If we say that ,"The four other companies do together account for very close to 60% of the total pollution by the 30 companies", that weakens. If the other four companies add up to 59% and then our company contributes 1%, then it doesn't sound like our company releases that much pollution. The argument never said that our company was the 5th highest when it came to pollutants. We might be the least-polluting of the 30. It would still be true that "our company and four other companies together account for 60%". I could say that "me and Obama and Bush and Clinton together account for 6 terms as President". That doesn't mean that I served any terms as President.

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

   81%
5. E

   Too Strong: no big variation9% picked this

   There is no significant variation in the quantities of pollutants released by the other 25

   If we negate this and say, "there is significant variation in the quantities of pollution released by the other 25 companies" does that weaken? No. If there were no variation, then those 25 companies that collectively contribute 40% of the pollutants would each be contributing 1.6% of the pollutants. If there's a lot of variation, then maybe some of them contribute 10% and others contribute 0.1%. It doesn't add up to any objection to the argument. It will still be true that these 25 companies account for only 40% of the total pollutants, whereas we and four other companies account for the other 60%. So the author's idea that we are worse than most companies when it comes to pollutants still makes plenty of sense.

   9%