Many airlines offer, for a fee

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   Steps that are taken in order to mitigate the harmful effects of one’s freely chosen, harmful actions do not absolve

   This principle is set up to prove "you're not absolved from the harm you caused". We're looking to prove "this scheme is ineffective" or "no emissions are prevented".

   2%
2. B

   Correct90% picked this

   If an outcome would have occurred in the absence of a certain action, then the outcome was not

   Why this is right

   This is testing the move from Premise to Intermediate Conclusion, using general language. It matches up semi-well with our prediction: If these projects would have then your fee still operated even without → didn't prevent your fee / donation any emissions if an outcome would have then the outcome occurred even in absence → wasn't because of your certain action of your action The intermediate conclusion is that "no carbon emissions are prevented (by these fees)". The right side of this answer choice is saying "the outcome where these projects reduce carbon emissions reductions would have occurred in the absence of your fee going into their budget. Therefore, the emissions reductions those projects achieve are not a consequence of your fee. Ultimately, getting this question right hinges a lot on noticing the lowercase Conclusion indicator "so" before that final claim. If we don't realize there's an Intermediate Conclusion that the correct answer could be working off of, it'll be harder to match this up.

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

   90%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   If a company or individual gains financially from a particular action, they should not be considered morally praiseworthy for any

   This principle is set up to prove "you should not be considered morally praiseworthy." We're looking to prove "this scheme is ineffective" or "no emissions are prevented".

   1%
4. D

   Bad Evidence/Conclusion Match7% picked this

   Measures aimed at achieving a certain outcome should only be taken when they are of demonstrable effectiveness

   This answer would work if the argument had sounded like this: Fees people pay to offset the CO2 when they fly have not been demonstrated to be effective at achieving that outcome. Therefore, people should not pay those fees. In this argument above, the concept of "these fees are ineffective" is a premise. But in the real argument, "these schemes are ineffective" was the main conclusion. There isn't a conclusion that says, "you should not pay these fees". The two explicit conclusions, whose language we should be oriented around finding, are "this fee is ineffective" or "no carbon emissions are prevented (by this fee)".

   7%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match Weak Conclusion Match1% picked this

   If a project for reducing carbon emissions does not tackle the largest source of carbon emissions, then it is of limited

   This principle has the power to support a conclusion that sounds like "these projects are of limited value in reducing carbon emissions". Does that match either of the two conclusions in the argument? Not really. The main conclusion was "these schemes are of limited value in terms of reducing carbon emissions" and the intermediate conclusion was "these projects would have operated even without airline passengers' fees". More incriminatingly, the evidence half of this answer is way off. The premise never talked about these projects "not tackling the largest source of carbon emissions". That doesn't match anything in the argument.

   1%