Steve: New regulations imposed by the government are going to stifle g

The following is my approach on this question. If anyone has comments, please let me know.

- Steve:
+ posits that government's regulations will impede mining industry's growth [this is his conclusion]
+ supports his conclusion by reasoning that money spent on compliance means less pay for workers -> fewer workers -> less work done
- Jane:
+ says that money spent on upgrading will increase safety for workers -> increase time on job

* The word "but" in Jane's argument expresses her disagreement with Steve. What does she disagree on? Conclusion? Evidence? Clearly, she disagree on his conclusion. By stating a positive impact of regulations (increase safety for workers -> increase time on job), Jane concludes that regulations will not stifle mining industry's growth. In another word, she undermines Steve's conclusion.

Now let take a look at all answer choices:
A. indicating that Steve lacks any evidence for his claim
=> Jane doesn't not mention it. In fact, she seems to accept his evidence.
B. disputing the accuracy of the facts Steve presents for his conclusion
=> As I mentioned in option (A), Jane doesn't dispute any facts Steve gives to support his conclusion
C. suggesting that Steve has not fully considered all the ramifications of the policy he objects to
Yes, this is right. Jane points out a positive effect of regulations on mining industry that Steve doesn't consider.
D. accepting Steve’s conclusion while at the same time introducing a new consideration
This is wrong. Jane doesn't accept Steve's conclusion
E. agreeing with Steve’s primary conclusion but disputing his secondary conclusion
Wrong! Jane doesn't accept any conclusion from Steve

nightblade354 harvard2019

I think D should be the correct answer as Sentence from Jane Start with But according to that I feel Jane is accepting Steve's conclusion but also present other side of the coin. Could you please advise if my understanding is correct.

Why I did not choose D is because of the word "ramification" that means unwelcome consequences.
Whatever Jane has mentioned here are not ramifications. These are positive consequences of new regulation.

Good learning from this question.

A. indicating that Steve lacks any evidence for his claim

B. disputing the accuracy of the facts Steve presents for his conclusion

C. suggesting that Steve has not fully considered all the ramifications of the policy he objects to

D. accepting Steve’s conclusion while at the same time introducing a new consideration

E. agreeing with Steve’s primary conclusion but disputing his secondary conclusion


Answer = C
What does Jane do:

She refutes the argument made by Steve. At no point Jane shows any sign of agreement. If she did, it might have looked like "While that may be the case for 1 or two mines but."
She brings a new point which Steve didnt think of which weakens or breaks Steve's argument.

gvij2017 word "ramification" is in option C and not in option D, Hope I have not made any error in getting your point.

Got your point buddy and I think I assumed following part with But and that was a my error

"While that may be the case for 1 or two mines but."

I also feel that D should be right. By saying 'but' she is agreeing with Steve and then presenting another consideration which has been ignored by Steve. Please clarify

Facts presented by Steve: The new regulations will cause mine owners to have to spend millions of dollars to bring their operations into compliance. The money spent on these upgrades means there is less money to pay workers.

Steve's Primary Conclusion: New regulations imposed by the government are going to stifle growth in the mining industry
Steve's secondary conclusion: a decrease happens in the amount of mining work done.

Jane does not agree to the primary or secondary conclusions even though she agrees with the facts presented.


Option Analysis

A. indicating that Steve lacks any evidence for his claim
Incorrect. Jane agrees to the facts presented as reasons.

B. disputing the accuracy of the facts Steve presents for his conclusion
She agrees with the facts. Incorrect.

C. suggesting that Steve has not fully considered all the ramifications of the policy he objects to
Correct. She derives further conclusions about the same policy that Steve did not think of.

D. accepting Steve’s conclusion while at the same time introducing a new consideration
Incorrect Steve's conclusions are not accepted.

E. agreeing with Steve’s primary conclusion but disputing his secondary conclusion
Incorrect. Steve's conclusions are not accepted.