ferrarih wrote:
Milville business spokesperson: Snowmobiles brings many out-of-towners to Milville in winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents. So, economics dictate that we put up with the pollution
Environmentalist: I disagree. A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noite an dpollution that snowmibiles generate
Enronmentalist reponds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?
a) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only one set of circumstances
b) Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative aspects associated with producing that outcome
I can't understand why the answer is A and not B??
This question requires us to find the assumption made by the Milville business spokesperson.
The spokesperson says:
Premise: Out-of-towners bring pollution, but they also bring financial benefit.
Conclusion: So for financial benefit we must put up with the pollution.
To get to the assumption here just ask the question
Why should we put up with pollution, is there no other alternative for financial benefit? and the assumption is:
No there is no other alternative.Answer
A correctly states this assumption and the Environmentalist is challenging this assumption by providing alternate means of financial benefit.
_________________
Life is a highway
I wanna ride it all night long
close
59% (01:13) correct 
