The legislature is considering a proposed bill

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: grave economic effect1% picked this

   the toxic contamination of fish in Eagle Bay has had grave economic effects on the

   This was never said. The author has an intermediate conclusion as evidence that worries whether toxic contamination could have grave effects on public health.

   1%
2. B

   Out of Scope: moral principle1% picked this

   the moral principle that an action must be judged on the basis of its foreseeable

   This question wants us to pick an answer that matches at least one piece of evidence that was offered to us. The author never discussed any moral principle. We shouldn't be trying to make any assumptions here about things the author might think. This is just asking us, "which of these answers correctly describes some of the explicit evidence"?

   1%
3. C

   Out of Scope: opponents failed5% picked this

   the opponents of the ban have failed to weigh properly its foreseeable negative effects against

   This question wants us to pick an answer that matches at least one piece of evidence that was offered to us. The author never discusses her opponents' failure to weigh positive vs. negative. We shouldn't be trying to make any assumptions here about things the author might think. This is just asking us, "which of these answers correctly describes some of the explicit evidence"?

   5%
4. D

   Correct91% picked this

   failure to enact the ban would carry with it unacceptable risks for

   Why this is right

   This matches the meaning of the final sentence, which was an Intermediate Conclusion (thus, part of the Evidence). Continuing to = failure to permit fishing enact the ban grave effects on = unacceptable risks public health for public welfare

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

   91%
5. E

   Out of Scope: reduce toxins2% picked this

   the ban would reduce the level of toxins in the fish

   All four wrong answers, including this one, just straight-up said something that was never said. The correct answer restates something that was said. Would it be fair to say this author was at least assuming this answer choice, that banning fishing would lower the toxins? No. Why would banning fishing lower toxins? Were the fishermen adding toxins to the Bay by fishing? The author is just worried about fishing somewhere that's full of fish that have absorbed a lot of toxins (humans shouldn't eat those fish).

   2%