Environmentalist: An increased number of oil spills

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct66% picked this

   The only effective sources of increased stringency in safety standards for oil tankers are action by the industry

   Why this is right

   This answer affirms the move the author made from "Since industry won't do it, the national government must regulate". She assumed that those are the only two options. If we negate this answer, it would weaken the argument by responding, "You know ... there are other effective sources increasing the stringency of safety standards for oil tankers". That would blow up the author's sense of necessity: the national government must regulate the government has to require double hulls and financial liability

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

   66%
2. B

   Out of Scope: save money10% picked this

   The requirement of two hulls on oil tankers, although initially costly, will save money over time

   This environmentalist hasn't mentioned anything about money. There's no reason to say he's assuming that this requirement of double hulls will pay for itself. Even if it doesn't pay for itself, the environmentalist's argument would still say "I don't care that it eats into profits; you can't keep destroying the environment".

   10%
3. C

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   The oil industry’s aging fleet of tankers must either be repaired

   Out of Scope: aging fleet of tankers We never discussed whether the oil industry has any aging tankers. The author's conclusion has nothing to do with repairing or replacing anything. It just mandates putting a double hull on their tankers (maybe that means adding a 2nd to existing ones, which would not count as a 'repair').

   1%
4. D

   Out of Scope5% picked this

   Government safety regulations are developed in a process of negotiation with industry leaders

   Out of Scope: how regs are developed This argument doesn't speak at all about how regulations are developed, so we can't accuse the environmentalist of assuming anything specific about that process. Since he never said or assumed anything about how regulations would be developed, negating this answer couldn't weaken him.

   5%
5. E

   Too Strong19% picked this

   Environmental concerns outweigh all financial considerations when developing

   Too Strong: outweigh all Out of Scope: financial considerations The environmentalist's argument doesn't bring up financial considerations other than saying that the government should force the oil companies to assume financial responsibility for oil spills. This answer is incredibly broad -- it's not even limited to the oil industry. It's saying that this author assumes that in every single instance of developing safety standards, environmental concerns are #1. Our author only needs environmental concerns to be important when developing safety standards for oil tankers.

   19%