PT153 S3 Q20 ExplanationBusiness owner: Although allowing coal mining

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Correct60% picked this

   It is given as direct evidence for a statement that is used to support the

   Why this is right

   Man, I really don't like this correct answer or like defending it. Here's the charitable way I think LSAC would explain it: If we permit mining, we'll lose jobs (why should we believe that?) Because the heavy activity of coal mining would force many businesses to close. (why should we believe that?) Because many local businesses depend on our region's natural beauty. Seen that way, yes this answer correctly describes that our claim is direct evidence for the Intermediate Conclusion (coal mining would force many businesses to close), which is support for the overall conclusion (if we permit mining, the number of jobs will decrease overall). My problem with this answer is boring and grammatical, so feel free to stop reading here. :) The pronoun "them" in the final claim (coal mining would force most of them to close) refers to "the many local businesses that depend on our region's natural beauty". If we replace the pronoun "them" with its referent, then our 3-part argument sounds dumber: If we permit mining, we'll lose jobs (why?) Because the heavy activity of coal mining would force [the many businesses that depend on our region's natural beauty] to close. (why?) Because many local businesses depend on our region's natural beauty. In that version, it feels like the final part, the Premise, is totally unnecessary and adds nothing. And it feels weird to say that in the last sentence, the first claim is direct evidence for the second claim, when it feels more like the first claim is just the specific referent that plugs into the pronoun in the second claim. I think the way LSAC would probably defend this is that the "them" just refers to "many local businesses", so when we say coal mining would force most of them to close, it's saying coal mining would force most of these many businesses to close. Ultimately, the fact that it's doable for me to explain the 3-part hierarchy of this argument, even if I'm fudging the last claim a little by saying "coal mining would force [many businesses] to close", means that we should probably pick this answer, since "depending on natural beauty" helps to explain why "heavy industrial activity" would make a business close.

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

   60%
2. B

   Not Direct Support31% picked this

   It is a premise that is offered as direct support for the overall conclusion

   Because LSAC wanted us to see this as a Premise -> Intermediate Conclusion -> Main Conclusion style argument, the claim we're being asked about is direct support for the Intermediate Conclusion and indirect support for the Main Conclusion. To consider whether it's direct support for the main conclusion, try the Why Test on the main conclusion and see if our claim sounds like a direct response: If we permit coal mining, jobs will go have a net decrease. why should we believe that ? Because, many local businesses depend on the region's natural beauty. Huh ? ? ? That wouldn't seem like an obviously germane reason why permitting mining would lead to fewer overall jobs. Since our claim doesn't seem to be any sort of direct reason why we should believe the conclusion, we can't call it direct support.

   31%
3. C

   Wrong Role6% picked this

   It is an intermediate conclusion offered as direct support for the

   This answer correctly says that our claim is part of the Support, but in calling it an Intermediate Conclusion, it means that our claim had its own support. Did it? why should we believe that "Many local businesses depend on natural beauty"? There's no reason ever given, so we can't call this an Intermediate Conclusion.

   6%
4. D

   Wrong Role1% picked this

   It is the overall conclusion drawn in

   The conclusion is that "if mining is permitted, local jobs will decrease".

   1%
5. E

   Opposite2% picked this

   It is a hypothesis for which evidence is explicitly offered, but it is not itself intended to support

   Opposite: not intended to support Out of Scope: hypothesis A hypothesis is a claim that tries to explain why a phenomenon has occurred or is occurring. This argument doesn't have any phenomenon that has happened / is happening, so the author isn't offering any causal hypotheses. Also, "many local businesses depend on natural beauty" has no evidence explicitly offered. why should we believe that "Many local businesses depend on natural beauty"? There's no reason ever given.

   2%