PT150 S2 Q16 ExplanationEnvironment minister: Many countries have signed

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   A country should not sign an agreement that is unlikely to achieve

   This principle is designed to output the conclusion language we want, should not sign agreement, but it's only triggered if we know that this agreement is unlikely to achieve it stated goal of reducing pollution in the world's oceans. We were actually explicitly told that it is likely to achieve its stated goal, so this rule definitely would not apply to this situation.

   1%
2. B

   Correct75% picked this

   It is more important to maintain economic growth in one's own country than it is to reduce pollution

   Why this is right

   Ah, they went with the Weighing Tradeoffs style of answer. The advantage of signing the agreement would be reducing pollution in the oceans. The downside would be a reduction in economic growth. What to do, what to do? According to this Principle, it's more important to avoid reducing growth, so that strengthens the conclusion that we should not sign the agreement.

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

   75%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   A country should not sign an agreement designed to achieve a particular goal if it is likely that a better means of

   This principle is designed to output the conclusion language we want, should not sign agreement, but it's only triggered if we know that "there is likely a better means of achieving the stated goal of reducing pollution in the world's oceans". Nothing in the argument mentioned a better means (or any alternative means) of achieving a reduction in ocean pollution.

   1%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match19% picked this

   When deciding whether to sign an agreement, a country should consider the agreement's effects on other countries' economies as well

   The author definitely seems to be following this Principle, when it comes to her premise. After all, her premise is considering the effect this agreement would have on her nation's economy as well as other countries' economies. But this rule doesn't offer any guidance as to whether or not the author's nation should / shouldn't sign the agreement. It only goes as far as, "You should consider factor X." Cool, we considered it. We also considered the possible benefit of signing the agreement. They go in different directions. So, now what should we do? This rule doesn't nudge us in either direction.

   19%
5. E

   Opposite Logic4% picked this

   If a policy is likely to protect the environment and is unlikely to reduce economic growth, then governments

   This argument was saying, If .... Then .... this policy (that is likely to our govt should protect the environment) is ? not implement likely to reduce econ growth that policy

   4%