Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumIdentifying Intermediate and Subsidiary Conclusions

Consider the following critical reasoning argument:

To prevent catastrophic power outages during peak summer heatwaves, the regional energy board plans to mandate utility-scale battery storage installations. Critics argue that the current high cost of battery storage makes this mandate financially unfeasible for smaller utility providers. However, recent supply chain developments have dramatically lowered the production cost of sodium-ion battery alternatives, which perform comparably in stationary applications. Because sodium-ion technology provides a viable, cost-effective substitute, smaller utilities can comply with the storage mandate without incurring ruinous debt. Therefore, the energy board's planned mandate will not force smaller utility providers into bankruptcy.

Match each claim from the passage with its exact structural role in the argument.

  • Recent supply chain developments have dramatically lowered the production cost of sodium-ion battery alternatives.Factual supporting premise
  • Smaller utilities can comply with the storage mandate without incurring ruinous debt.Intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion
  • The energy board's planned mandate will not force smaller utility providers into bankruptcy.Main conclusion
  • The current high cost of battery storage makes this mandate financially unfeasible for smaller utility providers.Counterargument / Opposing position

Answer

The claims match their structural roles as follows: the sodium-ion cost statement is a factual supporting premise; the statement that smaller utilities can comply without ruinous debt is the intermediate conclusion; the statement that the mandate will not force smaller utilities into bankruptcy is the main conclusion; and the critics' objection about current costs is a counterargument.
The correct pairings accurately reflect the logical flow of the argument: the statement about lowered sodium-ion costs serves as a factual premise; this premise leads to the subsidiary conclusion that smaller utilities can comply without ruinous debt; this subsidiary conclusion directly supports the main conclusion that the mandate will not cause bankruptcy; and the critics' stance represents an opposing counterargument.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument
The final sentence ('Therefore, the energy board's planned mandate will not force smaller utility providers into bankruptcy') is introduced by the conclusion indicator 'Therefore' and represents the primary claim the author defends.
Determining the final claim helps establish the direction of logical support.
2
Locate the intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion
The sentence 'Because sodium-ion technology provides a viable, cost-effective substitute, smaller utilities can comply with the storage mandate without incurring ruinous debt' contains a claim supported by premise evidence, which in turn directly supports the main conclusion.
An intermediate conclusion receives support from factual premises and provides logical support to the final main conclusion.
3
Classify the remaining supporting premise and opposing claim
The statement about recent supply chain developments lowering sodium-ion costs acts as a foundational factual premise. The critics' claim about high costs represents an opposing counterargument.
Distinguishing background/opposing views and observational facts from inferred claims ensures accurate structural role mapping.

Key Concept

Identifying Intermediate and Subsidiary Conclusions
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Intermediate and Subsidiary Conclusions

More questions from this topic