Bunuel wrote:
Jason: The solar cooker provides free energy for cooking, baking, and cleaning water. People who use it avoid indoor smoke inhalation, fire hazards, and injuries from gathering firewood. They also have environmental benefits such as reducing deforestation, lowering energy costs, and reducing CO2 emissions. The solar cooker is a simple solution to a host of problems in the developing world.
Zola: While I agree with your arguments, I disagree with your conclusion. Solar cookers have all of those benefits. Unfortunately, it takes a long time for them to bring water to a boil—usually between two and three hours—and they require ample sunlight, which is not always available in the rainy season. In practice, they are not a perfect solution by far.
Zola responds to Jason’s argument using which one of the following argumentative techniques?
(A) She argues that Jason’s conclusion is just a restatement of his fallacious arguments.
(B) She argues that Jason’s conception of the ills of developing nations is too limited in scope and thus his conclusion is insufficient.
(C) She questions the integrity of Jason’s research and whether his conclusion is based on a faulty foundation.
(D) She gives an alternate interpretation of the assumptions that results in a different conclusion altogether.
(E) She introduces caveats that weaken several of Jason’s assumptions.
Jason’s argument: The solar cooker provides free energy, leads to avoidance of indoor smoke inhalation, fire hazards, and injuries from gathering firewood, and reduces deforestation and CO2 emissions. So, solar cooker is a simple solution to a host of problems in the developing world.
Zola: Your premises are correct but not your conclusion. Solar cookers have all of those benefits. But they have some drawbacks (long time for boiling water, require ample sunlight which is not always available). In practice, they are not a perfect solution by far.
Jason and Zola have opposing views.
Jason claims that solar cooker is a simple solution to a host of problems in the developing world.
Zola feels that solar cookers are not the great solution they are made out to be.
So, Zola agrees with Jason’s premises but brings in additional considerations that weaken his conclusion.
So, the ‘method of disagreement’ here is "One can provide additional data that weakens the conclusion."
(A) She argues that Jason’s conclusion is just a restatement of his fallacious arguments.She does not say that Jason’s argument is fallacious and neither does she state that the conclusion is a restatement.
(B) She argues that Jason’s conception of the ills of developing nations is too limited in scope and thus his conclusion is insufficient.
She does not say that Jason does not cover the issues of developing nations. She brings forth the shortcomings of solar energy.
(C) She questions the integrity of Jason’s research and whether his conclusion is based on a faulty foundation.
Zola does not question Jason’s research.
(D) She gives an alternate interpretation of the assumptions that results in a different conclusion altogether.She does not give any alternate interpretation.
(E) She introduces caveats that weaken several of Jason’s assumptions.Correct. Jason concludes that solar cooker is a simple solution so he assumes that there are no big issues with it. He assumes that it works well and is not problematic. But she introduces considerations that weaken this.
Answer (E)Method Questions are discussed here:
https://youtu.be/uA5aXAZI1Z8