Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental protection mea

Hey All,

Great work on this one. I saw that the "General approach" question got asked on this one, so I thought I'd weigh in. This is an "evaluate the argument" type of question, and nsp is on the right track. Basically, you want to do your total outline WITHOUT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE BOLDS. Once you've done that, you can try to figure out where the bolds fit in with your outline. ALSO, very often, it is enough to simply differentiate between what pieces provide evidence of or support for something else, which are COUNTER-premises, and which are mere claims/conclusions. Let's try that here.

Few businesses will voluntarily implement environmental rotection measures that benefit the public if those measures reduce profitability. Even though such measures may cost less to implement than the total value of their benefits to society, the company making the decision bears all of the cost and receives little, if any, of the benefit. For example, XYZ Corporation has for the last 10 years refused to install smokestack filters to reduce the air pollution emitted by its factory, claiming that the cost would be prohibitive. Therefore, if such measures are to be implemented to protect the environment, they must be initiated by government regulation or intervention.

Conclusion: Measure to protect environment must be initiated by government
Premises: Biz won't help environment if hurts profits. XYZ = concrete example of that premise.

What you'll see here is that BOTH bolded statements end up in that premise area. Let's see if we can find the answer with that info alone.

The bolded portions of the argument above perform which of the following functions?

1. The first phrase states the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the truth of which supports the validity of the conclusion
PROBLEM: Neither bold is a conclusion.

2. The first phrase states a premise supporting the conclusion, and the second provides evidence, the falsity of which would disprove the first phrase.
PROBLEM: Okay. So the general approach breaks down here, because this does describe the two as both types of premises. However, the falsity of the second piece would not disprove the generalization.

3. The first phrase describes a general principle, and the second provides evidence countering that principle.
PROBLEM: We don't have any counter-premises here, so this is wrong.

4. The first phrase states a claim supporting the conclusion, but for which no evidence is given, and the second describes an example supporting the conclusion.
PROBLEM: Like B, this one comes close. However, the second piece does not support the conclusion, but the premise before it.

5. The first phrase states a generalization supporting the conclusion, and the second cites an example supporting that generalization.
ANSWER: There we go, premise, then a derivative premise.

Hope that helps!

-t