CEO: We have been falsely

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: cannot Not Assumed5% picked this

   takes for granted that production methods that do not produce pollution

   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.

   5%
2. B

   Unrelated: cause / effect2% picked this

   fails to take into account the possibility that different causes can

   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.

   2%
3. C

   Not Part vs. Whole / Sampling4% picked this

   generalizes too hastily from the inapplicability of a specific criticism to the inapplicability of a

   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".

   4%
4. D

   Stated, Not Assumed18% picked this

   takes for granted that because the company has attempted to reduce the amount of pollution produced,

   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?"

   18%
5. E

   Correct72% picked this

   ignores the possibility that there are currently production methods that would allow the corporation to produce less pollution

   Why this is right

   Since this answer begins with fails to consider / ignores possibility, we can ask ourselves, "Would it weaken the argument if there are methods that would allow them to produce less pollution?" Yes! If there are methods that would allow them to pollute less, then they are not "doing all they can to pollute less", so they don't meet the trigger of the rule the author was attempting to use. This speaks to the idea of, "Just because your new method is better than your old method doesn't mean it's the best available method."

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

   72%