Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaWeakening Arguments

A recent study conducted in regional agricultural districts showed that farms adopting drip irrigation systems reduced water usage by 30 percent per hectare compared to farms using conventional flood irrigation. To promote water conservation, local authorities plan to subsidize half of the installation costs of drip irrigation systems for all commercial farms in the region, concluding that this program will significantly reduce overall agricultural water consumption. Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the water authorities' argument?

  1. By significantly lowering per-hectare operational costs, the implementation of drip irrigation will encourage most commercial farmers to convert previously uncultivated land into actively irrigated acreage.Cevap
  2. B
    Drip irrigation systems deliver water directly to crop roots, minimizing evaporation loss compared to conventional surface flooding methods.
  3. C
    Municipal and residential water consumption in the region has steadily increased over the past decade due to rapid suburban expansion.
  4. D
    Technological modifications to conventional flood irrigation hardware are expected to make traditional methods moderately more energy efficient within ten years.
  5. E
    Commercial farms in adjacent agricultural districts that did not receive government subsidies historically exhibited low voluntary adoption rates for new equipment.

Cevap

The argument is most seriously weakened by the finding that lower per-hectare operational costs will prompt farmers to expand their irrigated acreage, offsetting per-hectare water savings.
The argument relies on the assumption that saving water on a per-hectare basis will automatically reduce total regional agricultural water usage. The correct choice demonstrates that adopting drip irrigation reduces per-hectare costs enough to induce farmers to irrigate more land. This increase in total irrigated acreage can completely offset or exceed the per-hectare water savings, frustrating the authorities' goal of reducing total consumption.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: Drip irrigation uses 30% less water per hectare than flood irrigation. Plan: Subsidize drip irrigation installation. Conclusion: Total agricultural water consumption in the region will decrease significantly.
Understanding the logic linking the plan to the intended outcome isolates the core assumption.
2
Analyze the implicit assumption.
The argument assumes that total cultivated acreage and crop water requirements will remain roughly constant after adopting the new technology.
If efficiency gains lead to an expansion of scale or changes in usage habits, total usage may not decline.
3
Evaluate the choices to find a statement that undermines the conclusion.
The statement regarding farmers expanding their irrigated land directly undermines the conclusion by showing that total water usage could stay the same or increase despite per-hectare efficiency.
A plan-goal argument is vulnerable if the plan incentivizes behavior that counteracts the desired goal.

Anahtar Kavram

Unintended Consequences and Scale Expansion (Rebound Effect in Plan-Goal Reasoning)
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Weakening Arguments

Bu konudan daha fazla soru