Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 2 · Question 9

Incorrect. The principle defining environmental responsibility involves doing everything that one can to minimize pollution. That takes into account current, not future, possibilities, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The stimulus notes that the different "causes" of pollution—the production methods—do in fact have different effects ("significantly less" pollution).

Incorrect. The criticism addressed is the same levied, so there's no jump from a specific criticism to a general one.

Incorrect. The criterion for being an environmentally responsible corporation is to do everything one can to minimize pollution. That doesn't take into account success of those efforts, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Corporation that does everything it can to pollute less → Environmentally responsible
CEO: We pollute less than we did, and there are no methods that produce no pollution. Therefore, we are environmentally responsible.

Answer Anticipation:
The CEO here establishes a "rule" for what establishes a corporation as environmentally responsible before attempting to apply it to her corporation. When a principle/conditional is applied to a specific situation, there's a good chance the argument is going to be flawed in that it doesn't establish that the sufficient condition is met.

Here, the CEO establishes that they're polluting less than they did and it's not possible to eliminate pollution entirely. However, that doesn't establish that they are doing everything they can to pollute less. There might be other methods that they aren't using that pollute less than their current methods (and much less than their old ones), or the corporation might not be doing anything to minimize pollution in areas other than their production methods.

In failing to establish the sufficient condition is met, the CEO's argument is flawed. The correct answer should highlight this, or the jump between lowering pollution in the production process and doing everything possible to pollute less.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the difference between what the CEO establishes about her corporation and the sufficient condition for being considered an environmentally responsible one. While they may have decreased pollution, there could be methods that pollute even less, and thus they haven't done everything in their power to reduce pollution.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument applies a conditional statement/principle to a specific situation, there's a good chance that it's flawed in that the information provided about the situation doesn't actually meet the sufficient condition. That gap will likely be featured in the correct answer.