PT155 S2 Q13 ExplanationCommentator: The worldwide oil crisis

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Correct86% picked this

   fails to consider the possibility that a party can benefit from an event without helping to

   Why this is right

   When a Flaw answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the following idea would be an objection. Could we say, "Hey, author -- sometimes a party can benefit from an event without helping to bring about that event"? Sure! That maps onto this conversation pretty easily. "Hey, author, isn't it possible that oil companies/countries benefited from the higher prices of oil (brought about by a real shortage of oil) without helping to bring about the higher prices of oil (via collusion and artificial price inflation)?" This answer reflects our objection that, "Just because someone benefited from something doesn't mean they caused it." Just because Clorox got rich off sanitizing wipes during the covid pandemic doesn't mean that Clorox hosted a bunch of super-spreader events or actively contributed to the misinformation campaign that facilitated the spread of covid.

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

   86%
2. B

   Too Strong: only3% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that oil companies and oil-producing countries were the only parties to benefit from

   When answers begin with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we can ask ourselves whether the author needs to assume this. Just like in Necessary Assumption, tons of answers on Flaw are wrong because they accuse the author of assuming something way stronger than anything the author seemed to be thinking. The author only mentions oil companies/countries benefiting from the 1973 oil crisis, but does that mean the author assumes only oil companies/countries benefited? Of course not. That's like saying that when someone says, "Black lives matter" they are assuming "only Black lives matter".

   3%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw: not Equivocation1% picked this

   rests on using the term “profit” in an

   This answer refers to the famous Equivocation flaw, in which the author uses the same term or concept twice in the argument, but each usage means something different. While there are multiple definitions to "profit" (it could mean "revenue was greater than expenses" or it could mean "provides benefit", as in She profited from the wisdom of her grandfather), this argument is only using profit in the fiscal sense of making money.

   1%
4. D

   Not Assumed: surplus3% picked this

   fails to establish that there was a worldwide oil surplus prior to the

   When answers begin with takes for granted / presumes / fails to establish, we can ask ourselves whether the author needs to assume this. Did the author need to assume that prior to the oil crisis in 1973, there was an oil surplus? No. The author is assuming there wasn't a shortage, but that doesn't mean he's assuming there was a surplus. It doesn't have to be one or the other. There can be a "balanced budget" between supply and demand. That's when prices end up being fairly constant.

   3%
5. E

   Irrelevant Objection8% picked this

   fails to consider the possibility that events that occur simultaneously can

   When answers begin with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would be a weakening objection. Could we say, "Hey, author --- events that occur simultaneously could be causally related"? That doesn't match up with the conversation at all. Were there simultaneous events described? Not really. There was an oil crisis in 1973. And then after 1973, the profits of oil companies/countries went up. Those are consecutive, not simultaneous. Furthermore, the author is thinking those two are causally related. He just thinks the relationship isn't "real shortage caused crisis, which caused higher profits". He thinks "collusion caused artificial shortage, which caused crisis, which caused higher profits".

   8%