So-called environmentalists have argued

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct60% picked this

   Not every development proposal opposed in recent years by these so-called environmentalists was opposed because they believed it to pose

   Why this is right

   This has the lovable Defender "not", so let's negate this and see if it weakens the argument. If we negate (A) into “Every proposal they opposed was opposed because they believed it threatened the environment". Yes that definitely weakens. We’d lose any basis for saying that concern for birds is just a mask for anti-development motives.Their past record of objections was always based on sincere concern for the environment, not just a determination to thwart development for its own sake.

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

   60%
2. B

   Too Strong (always)15% picked this

   People whose real agenda is to block development wherever it is proposed always try to

   This universal claim is unnecessary; the argument only cares about these particular so-called environmentalists, not everyone with anti-development leanings.

   15%
3. C

   Irrelevant Relationship Too Strong: anyone3% picked this

   Anyone who opposes unrestricted development is an opponent

   This is a conditional idea, so we can ask ourselves if the author ever made a reasoning move like, "If you oppose unrestricted development, then I know you're an opponent of progress". No, she did not. She made a reasoning move like this: "If you have objected to virtually every development proposal in recent years, then you have an antidevelopment / antiprogress agenda". Notice that this form of trap answer takes two terms from the same claim (antidevelopment / antiprogress) and tries to invent a relationship between them. If an argument concluded, "Thus, Tom is a liar and a cheat", this sort of trap answer would say "All liars are cheats".

   3%
4. D

   Out of Scope11% picked this

   The council has no reason to object to the proposed Golden Lake Development other than concern about the

   If we negate this and say that the council DOES have some non-bird-related reason to be concerned about the GLD, that doesn't weaken the argument, because it doesn't say anything about whether the environmentalists' concerns are genuine or disguise an agenda.

   11%
5. E

   Too Strong: almost always12% picked this

   When people say that they oppose a development project solely on environmental grounds, their real concern

   The author didn’t generalize about all environmental arguments made by anyone. The argument specifically targets this group’s motives, so a sweeping claim isn’t needed.

   12%