Logical reasoning PrepTest 158 · Section 4 · Question 2

This doesn't describe a flaw in this argument's reasoning. The meaning of "environment" doesn't change over the course of the argument. Both times the columnist uses "environment," it refers to the natural world.

This answer choice describes a type of cause-and-effect flaw, and it's tempting to some test-takers because this argument describes a cause-and-effect relationship between producing energy and damaging the environment. The columnist claims that producing energy causes damage to the environment.

This answer choice says the argument is flawed because that cause and effect could be reversed — implying that damaging the environment could produce energy. But that's not an issue here since producing energy (to make or recycle products) clearly precedes environmental damage.

Moreover, this answer choice doesn't address the salient point in the columnist's argument — whether making products from recycled materials is as environmentally damaging as making products from nonrecycled materials. Therefore, this answer choice does not describe an error in the columnist's reasoning.

When we see "fails to consider" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

This answer choice wouldn't weaken the argument. The columnist's conclusion isn't about "recycled products in general." It's only about "some types of products from recycled materials." Even if almost all recycled products don't damage the environment as much as nonrecycled products, that wouldn't necessarily hurt the columnist's conclusion. To prove this conclusion, the columnist just needs to show that a couple of recycled products damage the environment as much as nonrecycled products.

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Passage Summary:
A columnist claims that making some products from recycled materials damages the environment as much as making those products from nonrecycled materials. Why? Recycling these products requires as much energy as producing them. And producing energy almost always damages the environment.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Anticipate why the premises are not enough to prove that the conclusion is true 
1. Checking to see if a common logical fallacy is committed is very helpful
3. Use anticipations to select the answer choice that:
1. Accurately describes the reason why the premises are not enough to prove that the conclusion is true

Answer Anticipation:
On an Errors in Reasoning question, we should take the time to articulate why the premise or premises aren't enough to prove that the conclusion is true. This argument is a little hard to wrap our hands around because it suddenly switches from discussing making products from recycled products to recycling products. That's probably intentional, by the way. The test-makers are hoping we'll get confused by this sudden concept switch and miss the flaw.

After all, the flaw is related to this concept switch, and taking the time to simplify the argument (perhaps even translating the conclusion and premises into SVO sentences, if necessary) will help you identify the flaw. The premises say that recycling products requires as much energy as making products and that energy production damages the environment. From that, we can infer that both making and recycling products probably damage the environment. But can we infer that making products from recycled materials damages the environment as much as making products from nonrecycled materials?

Nope. The premises don't tell us anything about making products from nonrecycled materials. Sure, making products from recycled materials damages the environment — because we're going to damage the environment a bit while acquiring the recycled materials and making the final product. But we don't know how much damage making a product from nonrecycled materials will cause. Maybe acquiring nonrecycled materials requires way more energy than acquiring recycled materials. In that case, making products from nonrecycled materials will damage the environment a lot when we acquire the nonrecycled materials and a bit when make the final product.

Plus, even if all energy production damages the environment, perhaps some types of energy production damage the environment less than others. Maybe the energy production required to make products with recycled materials damages the environment way less than the energy required to make products from nonrecycled materials.

Finally, we can use our common sense here. Is energy production the only thing that we think of when we think of damaging the environment? Of course not. Making recycled products could have many benefits that aren't related to energy. Using recycled materials could cut down the amount of natural resources we use and the amount of waste we produce. These benefits could offset the energy used to recycle the materials.

So, we can identify many flaws this short argument makes! The correct answer should reference one of these.

Answer Choice Explanation:

When we see "fails to consider" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

This would definitely weaken the columnist's conclusion. Suppose that making products from recycled materials can benefit the environment in ways that aren't related to energy consumption. In that case, making some products from recycled materials wouldn’t damage the environment as much as making those products from nonrecycled materials. If using recycled materials cuts down the amount of natural resources we use or the amount of waste we produce, then these recycled products might be significantly better for the environment than products from nonrecycled materials. So, this answer choice describes an error in the columnist's reasoning.

Key Takeaway:
When analyzing the validity of a conclusion that compares two different things, consider whether the author tilted that comparison in favor of one side. The author might ignore relevant factors on one or both sides or assume that certain factors affect each side in the same way. The columnist did both of those things in this argument. The columnist ignored environmental damage not related to energy production. The columnist also ignored the energy required to acquire nonrecycled materials. And the columnist assumed that the energy production required to make products with recycled materials damages the environment the same as the energy required to make products from nonrecycled materials.

When we see "presumes, without providing justification" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Does the author believe this, and would this strengthen the argument?"

In this case, the columnist doesn't necessarily believe that one thing must cause another simply because the first came before the second. Although the columnist describes a cause-and-effect relationship between producing energy and damaging the environment, the columnist doesn't say that producing energy causes damage to the environment simply because producing energy comes first. In fact, the columnist never describes why they think that producing energy causes environmental damage. The columnist asserts that relationship as a premise, so we have to accept it when evaluating this argument's validity.

Besides, this answer choice doesn't address the salient point in the columnist's argument — whether making products from recycled materials is as environmentally damaging as making products from nonrecycled materials. Therefore, this answer choice does not describe an error in the columnist's reasoning.