Engineer: Some people argue that

Answer choices

1. A

   Background16% picked this

   mining the Moon for helium-3 is currently

   It's implied that mining is not currently feasible, but that's not the conclusion. The author's conclusion is "it's crazy to think that mining for helium-3 would solve our energy problems". Ultimately, her premise isn't "after all, it's not feasible to mine for it" but rather "we won't have the technology to use helium-3 for a long time".

   16%
2. B

   Inference-Bait0% picked this

   fusion reactors that are now being planned are not designed to use

   This sounds nothing like "mining for helium-3 won't solve our energy problems". This is trying to bait people into inferring, from the fact that we won't have reactors capable of using helium-3 for a while, that the reactors currently being planned aren't designed for helium-3. Even if that's a correct inference, it doesn't match our conclusion.

   0%
3. C

   Unrelated to Goal0% picked this

   people who advocate mining the Moon for helium-3 do not realize that fusion reactors could be designed to

   This is an unstated idea, so shouldn't be tempting. It doesn't at all resemble what we're looking for, which is "it's nonsense to think that mining the moon for helium-3 would solve our energy problems".

   0%
4. D

   Correct79% picked this

   mining the Moon for helium-3 is not a possible solution to the

   Why this is right

   This choice is the best meaning match for "it's nonsense to think that mining the Moon for helium-3 would solve our energy problems".

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

   79%
5. E

   Premise / Last Claim Bait4% picked this

   if the world’s energy problems are not solved within the next 50 years, it will be too late

   This is just the final claim (a typical trap answer on Main Conclusion), and the final claim is a Premise, as it is on 90% of Main Conclusion arguments.

   4%