KVKool wrote:
How to eliminate D or B?
D directly addresses the pollution problem from an example somewhere. And B directly attacks the economic part of it.
Posted from my mobile device
Quote:
Environmentalist: Snowmobiles in the park north of Milville create unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.
Milville Business Spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to Milville in the winter months, to the great direct financial benefit of many local residents. In addition, the money the town collects in fees for the recreational use of the park indirectly benefits all Milville residents. So, it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution.
Which of the following, if true, could best be used by the environmentalist to counter the business spokersponerson's argument?
We need to weaken the Spokesperson conclusion.
Conclusion : it is basic economics for us to put up with the pollution. ---> economics strong ( let the pollution go on)
Quote:
(B) Not all of the people who go snowmobiling in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
I can read it as:
Some in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town.
Very few in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town. --> If very few, then it doesn't add much to town fees then economics > pollution is not a point of discussion. This option become irrelevant.
Mostly all in the vicinity of Milville are from out of town. --> Yes good strengthener. So it must not be bannned. But we need to find weakner. How can be this option an answer
( % proportion varies the weakness of answer, so it can not be a strong weakner)
Secondly, I need to focus in area " in the park north of Milville"
Is it in vicinity of Milville ? or is it in the Milville
Again an open claim and can be argued.
So this is far from right answer.
Quote:
(D) Industrial pollution in Milville has been significantly reduced in the past few years without any adverse effect on the town's economy.
That's good to hear. But can we apply the same rule in case of pollution raised by Snowmobiles? Actually we can't say whether it can be reduced .--> open point to argue
Even it can be reduced, then I am not weakening the conclusion.
I need to weaken an option : economics> pollution.
With this option , I am getting a message that pollution can be reduced so economics benefits can continue. So this option is irrelevant for us.
Quote:
(A) A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.
With same technique, It directly hit the conclusion.
Economics> Pollution .
This option says that there is no economics ( no benefits because tourists won't come, no pay fees, no add benefits to town ) if pollution still exists
It weakens the claim on the basis of which the conclusion was driven.