PT158 S4 Q17 ExplanationMateo: Global warming has caused

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match4% picked this

   Any industry has an obligation to pay for any damage that it should have known would

   This principle requires that the damage be something the industry "should have known" would result from its product. But Mateo's argument never establishes — and does not need to establish — that the auto industry knew or should have foreseen this specific chain of consequences (pollution causes warming causes melting causes village relocation). Introducing a foreseeability or knowledge requirement creates a condition the argument's evidence does not satisfy. The auto industry could plausibly argue it did not foresee its products would melt permafrost beneath a distant village — and under this principle, they would escape liability. Mateo needs a strict causation-based principle with no escape hatches.

   4%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   Manufacturers should be required to produce goods in a way that minimizes harm to people

   Mateo's conclusion is specific: the auto industry should help PAY for the villagers' relocation costs. This principle establishes only a duty to "minimize harm," which is considerably weaker. "Minimize harm" could be satisfied by reducing emissions, investing in cleaner technology, or providing partial assistance — none of which necessarily includes paying full relocation costs. The principle must lead to the specific conclusion stated in the argument. A principle that leads to a vaguer or weaker conclusion does not fully justify the argument. The gap between "minimize harm" and "help pay relocation costs" is significant.

   2%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   When the use of a product causes damage, governments should not be required to help pay for the damage unless those responsible for manufacturing

   This principle addresses government obligations, not industry liability. Mateo's conclusion is specifically that the automotive INDUSTRY should pay, not that the government should or shouldn't. Even if this principle established conditions under which the government should not foot the bill, that does not automatically shift the obligation to the auto industry. The argument needs a principle that directly creates a link between "your product caused damage" and "you should pay." This principle operates in a different sphere — government fiscal policy rather than industry liability — and cannot justify the specific conclusion about the auto industry's financial responsibility.

   2%
4. D

   Correct85% picked this

   Any industry manufacturing a product whose use contributes to costly damage for others should be liable for any damage

   Why this is right

   This principle states that any industry whose product's use contributes to costly damage should be liable for those costs. Apply it to Mateo's facts: (1) The auto industry manufactures cars. (2) The use of cars produces pollution that contributes to global warming. (3) Global warming causes permafrost to melt, forcing villagers to relocate at great expense. (4) Therefore, the auto industry's product contributes to costly damage. (5) By this principle, the auto industry should be liable for the relocation costs. The principle maps perfectly onto the argument. No extra conditions are required — no foreseeability, no intent, no knowledge. Just a clean causal connection between product use and damage, combined with the obligation to pay. The conclusion follows with logical certainty once this principle is accepted. This is exactly the kind of tight principle-to-conclusion alignment that Justify questions demand.

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

   85%
5. E

   Reversal / Creates Impossible Standard7% picked this

   An industry that contributes to global warming should be required to help pay for resulting damage to specific communities only if it has a

   This principle says the auto industry should be required to pay for THIS specific damage ONLY IF there is already a general obligation for it to pay for ALL damage its products cause. This is backwards from what Mateo needs. He wants to establish liability for one specific case, but this principle requires first proving universal liability — a much harder and broader task. It creates a precondition (general obligation to all damage) that must be satisfied before the specific obligation (pay for relocation) kicks in. Since Mateo has not established such a sweeping general obligation, this principle actually blocks his conclusion rather than supporting it.

   7%