Tumbler
There is more than 1 correct answer ! Explain the whole thing using negation technique
Tumbler Here's how I'd approach it:
The Argument's Logic:- Evidence: City X implemented a plastic bag fee → \(40\%\) reduction
- Premise: Consumer behavior is similar across cities
- Conclusion: Our city should expect a comparable reduction
Applying Negation to Each Choice:(A) The fee will NOT be high enough to deter most consumersDoes this destroy the argument? Not necessarily. The argument references a "similar policy" to the one that worked. The fee level is implied to be similar. This doesn't destroy the core logic.
Not necessary.(B) Retail stores will NOT comply fully and will find ways to distribute bags without chargingDoes this destroy the argument? This seems damaging, but the argument compares to another city where the policy was implemented. We assume similar implementation conditions. While compliance matters, it's not the
fundamental assumption the argument rests on.
Not the credited answer.(C) Alternative materials WILL lead to an increase in overall wasteDoes this destroy the argument? No. The conclusion is about "
plastic waste" specifically, not overall waste. Even if total waste increases, plastic waste could still decrease by \(40\%\).
Not necessary.(D) Consumers ARE already using fewer plastic bags than those in the other cityDoes this destroy the argument? This seems problematic – if they're already using fewer bags, maybe they can't achieve the same reduction. However, "comparable reduction" could mean a similar
percentage reduction from their current level. The argument already states "consumer behavior is similar," which addresses baseline similarity.
Not the core assumption.(E) Other factors DID cause the reduction (not the fee itself)Does this destroy the argument?
YES, completely! If the fee wasn't the cause of the \(40\%\) reduction in City X – if it was actually due to awareness campaigns, other environmental policies, or unrelated factors – then implementing just the fee in the new city won't produce the same results. The entire argument collapses because the causal link is broken.
Answer: (E)Why This Feels Tricky:Options (B) and (D) are
strengtheners – they make the argument better but aren't strictly necessary for the logic to hold. The argument already implies similar implementation ("similar policy") and similar starting conditions ("similar consumer behavior").
Option (E) is different: it addresses
causation, which is the foundation of the argument. The argument uses City X's experience to predict City Y's outcome. This only works if the fee
caused the reduction in City X.
Key Distinction: Necessary assumptions are the
minimum required for the argument to work. Strengtheners make it more convincing but aren't essential to the basic logic.
I hope this is clear enough now.