Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardIdentifying Main Conclusions

The following statements represent the core structural components of a Critical Reasoning argument concerning deep-sea resource exploitation policy. Arrange the statements in their correct logical structural sequence, beginning with the background context, followed by the supporting empirical premise, then the intermediate conclusion, and ending with the main ultimate conclusion.

  1. 1Recent innovations in autonomous robotic dredging have rendered the commercial extraction of polymetallic nodules from abyssal ocean floors financially viable for international mining consortia.
  2. 2Abyssal benthic ecosystems require centuries to recover from physical disruption, and dredging operations severely impair microbial communities critical to global oceanic carbon sequestration.
  3. 3Consequently, the short-term revenues generated by seabed mineral harvesting will be vastly outweighed by the long-term systemic financial liabilities resulting from ecological damage.
  4. 4Therefore, international maritime governing bodies should enact an immediate moratorium on all commercial deep-sea mining licenses until comprehensive environmental protection standards are institutionalized.

Answer

The correct logical sequence places the statement introducing autonomous robotic dredging viability first as background context, followed by the statement regarding abyssal ecosystem recovery and carbon sequestration as supporting evidence, then the statement asserting that short-term revenues will be outweighed by financial liabilities as an intermediate conclusion, and finally the statement recommending an immediate moratorium on mining licenses as the ultimate main conclusion.
A coherent Critical Reasoning argument moves logically from context to evidence, intermediate evaluation, and ultimate recommendation. The background context establishes that deep-sea mining is technologically feasible. The supporting premise presents scientific data regarding ecological damage. The intermediate conclusion synthesizes this data into an economic cost-benefit assessment. Finally, the main ultimate conclusion uses that economic assessment to justify a specific policy action: a regulatory moratorium.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the foundational background information that introduces the subject matter.
The statement regarding technological innovations and financial viability of robotic dredging establishes the context.
An argument logically begins by establishing the current real-world situation or context before evaluating its consequences.
2
Identify the factual premise that presents evidence against the trend described in the background.
The statement detailing abyssal ecosystem recovery times and carbon sequestration disruption is identified as the empirical premise.
Evidence premises present factual data and observations that serve as the foundation for subsequent claims.
3
Distinguish the intermediate conclusion from the ultimate main conclusion.
The statement asserting that short-term revenues will be outweighed by long-term financial liabilities is derived from the environmental premise and serves to justify the policy call.
An intermediate conclusion acts as a bridge; it is supported by premises and in turn supports the final claim.
4
Identify the ultimate main conclusion.
The statement advocating for an immediate moratorium on deep-sea mining licenses is the ultimate main conclusion.
The main conclusion represents the overarching purpose and main claim of the entire argument.

Key Concept

Identifying Main Conclusions and Structural Roles in Complex Arguments
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Main Conclusions

More questions from this topic