Bunuel wrote:
Johan: Global warming has been sold to the general population as a serious threat, but in reality there is very little scientific proof that the earth is experiencing anything more than normal climate change over long periods of time. There is scientific truth to the argument that the climate is changing and that the earth is slightly warmer now than it was several decades ago, but there is no proof that this is due to human activity or to environmental pollutants. In reality, the earth experiences gradual climate shifts that result in warmer and cooler climates. We are currently in one of those shifts.
Andrian: It is impossible to believe that governments would spend billions of dollars on research to prevent global warming if it were scientifically proven to be a case of normal climate change. Most scientists seem to agree that the earth’s climate is changing, and given the output of pollution from mankind, it stands to reason that the pollution has effected some climate change.
Which of the following best characterizes Andrian’s response to Johan’s argument?
(A) Andrian ignores the substance of Johan’s argument and instead delivers an ad hominem, or personal, attack against Johan.
(B) Andrian relies on faulty evidence to back up his rebuttal to Johan.
(C) Andrian disputes the starting point of Johan’s argument but fails to address the evidence that Johan uses in support.
(D) Andrian focuses only on one part of Johan’s argument but does not sufficiently challenge the second part of Johan’s argument.
(E) Andrian attacks a secondary point of Johan’s argument but does not counter the main point effectively.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Overview: Question presents a conversation between Johan and Andrian about global warming. Johan argues that global warming is essentially a normal feature of climate change and that the earth experiences such climate shifts periodically. He claims that human actions and environmental pollution have not caused global warming and that the earth is simply going through an expected climate change. Andrian responds by claiming that if scientists really recognized global warming to be a normal feature of climate change, governments would not be spending so much money on preventing global warming. Andrian goes on to say that since the earth’s climate is changing, and man has been releasing an increasing rate of pollution into the environment, it stands to reason that the argument about man’s contribution to global warming is correct. The student is then asked to identify which of the answer choices best characterizes Andrian’s response to Johan. The student should recognize at once that Andrian’s response to Johan has very little substance to it. He initially disagrees with Johan but then uses a circular argument to explain his point. What is more, he does not address any of Johan’s primary points of support and, as a result, his (Andrian’s) argument makes little sense as a response to Johan. While the question itself does not necessarily point to identifying a flaw in Andrian’s reasoning, the correct answer will need to reflect this failure on Andrian’s part.
The Correct Answer:C Answer choice (C) accurately explains Andrian’s response and the problem with it: he disagrees with Johan but does absolutely nothing to target and undermine Johan’s points of support. Answer choice (C), therefore, is correct.
The Incorrect Answers:A At no point does Andrian attack Johan personally, and there is not part of his response that could be perceived as a personal attack, so answer choice (A) must be incorrect.
B Andrian relies on virtually no evidence to back up his line of reasoning, and while this in itself could be deemed faulty, it cannot be said that he actually relies on faulty evidence. Answer choice (B) is also incorrect and may be eliminated.
D Andrian does focus on disagreeing with Johan, but Johan’s argument is not divided into two parts, so it cannot be said that Andrian focuses on one part but ignores the second part. Johan’s argument is a single statement about man’s contribution to global warming, and Andrian only focuses on disputing Johan’s point that man has had no part in it (with no supporting evidence on Andrian’s part except for a hypothetical statement that governments would not spend money on something nonexistent). Answer choice (D) is
incorrect.
E Again, Johan’s argument is not actually divided into two parts: it is a single argument with several points of support. So Andrian cannot be said to attack the secondary part and overlook the main part. Answer choice (E) is also incorrect.