PT140 · S2 · Q9 CEO: We have been falsely

Did this author need to assume that we will never develop production methods that do not produce pollution? No, the author wasn't making that extreme assumption. She was simply saying that currently there is no production method that produces no pollution, as a way of arguing that the company is currently doing as much as currently can be done to limit pollution.

This answer seems to just be fishing for students who know that Causal flaws are one of the most recurring types of famous flaws. This argument as nothing to do with interpreting correlations or causal relationships in different ways. We are really only scrutinizing whether this corporation fits the trigger of the rule provided. We're asking whether "current production methods" really "doing all that can be done to pollute less". Does "polluting less than before" qualify as "doing all that can be done to pollute less". These aren't cause / effect questions.

This is another answer with famous flaw bait. Too hastily generalizing from a specific case to a class of criticisms would either be a Sampling flaw or a Part to Whole flaw. That has nothing to do with this conversation. We're never talking about "an entire class of criticisms".

The author doesn't make any reasoning move from "we attempted to reduce pollution, thus we must have reduced pollution". The author flatly states that "the current production methods pollute significantly less than our old methods". There's no language about attempting to reduce pollution. There's just a factual reporting that they did reduce pollution. We're accepting that, since it's a premise, and thinking, "Even though they did reduce pollution with their new methods, how can I still argue that they're not an environmentally responsible corporation, as defined by that rule?"