Politician: Critics of the wetlands-protection

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: critics' motives = all motives23% picked this

   It falsely identifies the motives of those who have criticized the wetlands-protection bill with the motives of all those

   The author never makes it seem like what is motivating the critics is motivating all people who criticize the bill. Only the critics are discussed.

   23%
2. B

   Correct68% picked this

   It does not adequately recognize the possibility that the definition of the word “wetlands” determines the

   Why this is right

   Just as arguing over the definition of marriage wouldn't be "quibbling over semantics" (which means fighting over tiny, hair-splitting differences in language), arguing over the definition of what will / won't be considered 'wetlands' is the whole point of this bill. The author can't evade the argument by pretending like his opponents are just quibbling, rather than voicing serious concerns about the restricted definition of wetlands. His opponents would probably be responding, "This isn't petty semantics. I'm glad that in the wetlands areas that would still be covered by this new definition that restrictions would be tighter, but I'm much more concerned by how many areas would no longer be considered 'wetlands' under this new definition. You'll be opening up areas to development that were formerly protected wetlands!"

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

   68%
3. C

   Out of Scope: profit3% picked this

   It assumes without justification that those who criticized the wetlands-protection bill stand to profit if

   The author thinks his opponents are trifling, but he's not saying that they are trying to profit off this argument. (His opponents sound like the more staunch environmentalists, who are mad that this new definition will leave formerly protected wetlands unprotected -- not a lot of profit motive in the world of ecological conservation)

   3%
4. D

   Not a Flaw5% picked this

   It fails to provide a defense for a less restrictive definition

   This author is saying "the new, more restrictive definition is fine --- these fools are just quibbling over tiny stuff, like wording". She doesn't need to defend a less restrictive definition, since she's not arguing in favor of one.

   5%
5. E

   Out of Scope2% picked this

   It attempts to defend the credibility of the author of the bill rather than defending

   Out of Scope: author of the bill The paragraph never mentions who authored the bill.

   2%