Logical reasoning PrepTest 129 · Section 1 · Question 13

Incorrect. This answer highlights that phasing out CFCs worked to address the underlying problem, but it doesn't suggest that the same could be true for the fossil fuel industry. It also only addresses the environmental impact, whereas the argument is over the feasibility of reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Incorrect. First, this answer doesn't establish that the reduction was enough to get to the point of halting global warming, which is what the fossil-fuel producers are arguing would be prohibitively expensive. Second, ignoring that, this answer doesn't tie into the analogy at all, so while it might strengthen the conclusion, it doesn't strengthen the argument.

Incorrect. The relative importance of making such changes is out of scope of the argument. Even if it's more important to fight global warming by getting emissions from fossil fuels under control, that doesn't mean it's not prohibitively expensive.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Fossil-fuel companies: It's impossible to economically reduce fossil fuel use enough to stop global warming.

Author: The chemical industry said the same thing about a chemical, but once they were forced to make a change, they did so and made money from it, so the fossil-fuel companies are probably wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
The Author of this argument rebuts the opposing viewpoint of the fossil-fuel companies by highlighting an analogous situation where their argument turned out to be wrong. When a Strengthen question features an argument that relies on an analogy, the correct answer usually brings up a relevant similarity between the two elements being compared in that analogy. Let's head into the answers finding something that suggests what worked in the chemical industry will also work in the fossil-fuel industry.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is interesting in that it sounds like it's raising a difference, but there is an element of similarity in here. We could rephrase this answer to say that there are solutions the fossil-fuel industry could implement that would work at least as well and be at least as economical as the ones implemented by the chemical industry. The argument only cares if that threshold is reached in using the analogy to draw its conclusion, so this answer does establish a relevant similarity that strengthens the argument. It'd be like saying, "Jon can afford the TV, so Alicia can afford the TV," and strengthening it with the idea that Alicia has twice as much disposable income as Jon—sure, that's a difference, but the relevant portion—do they have enough money to afford the TV?—is similar.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument relies on an analogy, relevant similarities strengthen it and relevant differences weaken it.

Incorrect. The debate is over whether this can be done without prohibitive expense, not whether it could be done, so this answer is out of scope.