PT148 S4 Q19 ExplanationEmployee: The company I work for

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   No Rationale for Disputed Action3% picked this

   Some people advocate moderation in all things. But different people react differently to certain substances, so what counts as a moderate amount of, say,

   This author is trying to rebut someone's suggested policy / action. However, the argument never cites what rationale is being used to justify that policy. We need that ingredient so that the author can argue, "Well then how come you're not applying that same rationale to this other situation where it would also seemingly apply?"

   3%
2. B

   Correct83% picked this

   Activists are calling for an electronic device to be banned, for research has shown that prolonged exposure to the device while it is in

   Why this is right

   We can match this up. The author is rebutting a course of action by saying that the rationale offered for that action is apparently being inconsistently applied, since some other situation also qualifies for that rationale and yet we don't seem to be applying that rationale in that other situation. - they're planning to do X They want to ban the electronic device - they say it's because of rationale Y It's because prolonged exposure to the device causes cancer. - but Y would apply to Z also, and no one is trying to apply Y in that situation. Other chemicals probably cause cancer when administered in high doses, and no one is saying we should ban all these chemicals for that reason.

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

   83%
3. C

   No Action / No Rationale2% picked this

   Acme expects that approximately 1,000 of its employees will retire over the next year. No one would claim that Acme does not need a

   In the original argument, the author is trying to rebut someone's suggested policy / action. However, this argument does not have such a thing. A bunch of people are separately planning to retire over the course of a year. Further more, the argument never cites what rationale is being used to justify that policy. We need that ingredient so that the author can argue, "Well then how come you're not applying that same rationale to this other situation where it would also seemingly apply?"

   2%
4. D

   Bad Objection Match6% picked this

   In many creative writing classes, aspiring writers are told that if the characters they create are not engaging, their novels and stories will not

   This argument is rebutting someone's rationale "if not engaging won't sell well". But to match the original argument, this should be saying, "Well what about this other situation? This has similar characteristics to creative writing, and no one says (in this other situation) that if it's not engaging it won't sell well?" Instead, this rebuttal, if we can even call it that, is simply saying that "Yes, having engaging characters may be necessary to sell well. But it's not sufficient to sell well."

   6%
5. E

   Bad Objection Match5% picked this

   In the movie industry, a film's success is judged in terms of its profit relative to its cost. This is misguided, because under this

   This argument is rebutting someone's rationale that "success is determined by profit relative to cost". But to match the original argument, this should be saying, "Well what about this other situation? This other situation has similar characteristics to films, and no one says (in this other situation) that we should judge success as profit relative to cost." Instead, this rebuttal stays within the world of film, rather than offering an analogous situation where the same rationale would potentially apply.

   5%