PT16 · S2 · Q12 Alexander: The chemical waste dump

When contraposed this says not in econ interest → shouldn't repair environment The right side isn't terrible, because the thrust of Teresa's conclusion is that we shouldn't spend money to repair the environment for its sake, only for the sake of our own health. But this trigger doesn't match anything she said in her evidence. She never said that repairing the damage we've done isn't in the community's economic interest. Instead, she talked about the community's health being our top priority.

Teresa does not say spare no expense. She says the opposite about scope: if the dump is a hazard, "we only need to remove that hazard," which is a limit on spending, not a blank check. This is a rule that says protects community's health → should spend money That rule does help support her final sentence, but when we're doing Principle-Conform we're not asking ourselves, "If established, would this principle help her?" (that's Principle-Strengthen) We're using a more conservative Necessary Assumption mindset to think, "Is this how the author was thinking?" And this extreme spending position sounds way beyond anything we heard this author implying.

This is essentially the opposite of how Teresa is thinking. Teresa sets the bar at a "significant health hazard." This says, tech could fix an slight enviro hazard → should be fixed We never talk about whether we have available technology to fix the problem, so that trigger doesn't match anything. And Teresa was only wanting to spend money if we have a significant health hazard. This answer makes it seem like she's willing to spend money on slight health risks as well.

The normative language here has nothing to do with whether we should / shouldn't spend resources. This is a principle about who should / shouldn't evaluate importance.