Alan: Government subsidies have been proposed

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: other than Rochelle5% picked this

   Building a dam across Rochelle’s major river will not reduce any recurrent flooding that occurs in regions of

   The author's conclusion is only about Rochelle's output, so she doesn't need to assume anything about other areas. If we negated this and said that this dam will reduce flooding in other regions too, that wouldn't hurt the argument in any way (unless we somehow knew that reduced flooding in other regions could somehow impact agricultural impact in Rochelle).

   5%
2. B

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   The new farming techniques that must be implemented to control soil erosion in Rochelle are not well suited

   Out of Scope: new techniques Out of Scope: other regions Betty's argument doesn't have anything to do with the new farming techniques. Her conclusion is saying "whether or not there are subsidies to help farmers implement the new techniques, agricultural output will stabilize because of that dam". This answer, like (A), also brings up regions other than Rochelle, which is also out of scope.

   1%
3. C

   Correct64% picked this

   The current yearly output, if any, from Rochelle’s land that will be permanently under water once the dam is completed will at least be

   Why this is right

   This is brutal to understand, as written, but since the conclusion we're fighting is about whether or not agricultural output will stabilize (i.e. stay the same), we should look harder at this. This answer is addressing the possibility that there may be some land in Rochelle that is currently farm land (producing some agricultural output) but will become submerged land once the dam is built. Does Betty need to assume that any such land, which currently yields output but would yield nothing once permanently under water, would be matched by additional yearly output from some other part of Rochelle? Sure. Betty needs output to be stable, to be the same. If we lose some output because some of our farmland gets covered in dammed water, then we would have lower output than before. It wouldn't be stabilized at its present (pre-dam) levels. The negation would weaken: "Land that currently provides output but will be permanently underwater once the dam is built, will not be made up for my additional output from other land in Rochelle". This negation attacks Betty's conclusion that our current output levels will continue once the dam is built.

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

   64%
4. D

   Out of Scope: cost25% picked this

   The cost to the government of Cariana to operate the hydroelectric dam will not be greater than the projected cost of subsidizing the farmers

   Betty's argument has nothing to do with cost. She is only making a claim about yearly agricultural output.

   25%
5. E

   Out of Scope: financial resources5% picked this

   The government of Cariana has sufficient financial resources both to subsidize its farmers’ implementation of new farming techniques and

   Betty's argument has nothing to do with money. She is only making a claim about yearly agricultural output once the dam is built. It doesn't affect her argument whether the government does have the money to do subsidies and a dam, or whether the government doesn't. Her conclusion doesn't care whether the subsidies happen or don't happen.

   5%