Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaRuling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender)

Ten years ago, the national government introduced a substantial tax on plastic packaging used by food manufacturers. Since the tax was implemented, the volume of plastic waste deposited in the nation's municipal landfills has decreased by 30 percent. Economists assert that the tax achieved its intended goal, concluding that the financial penalty forced food manufacturers to switch to biodegradable packaging alternatives, thereby reducing the amount of plastic waste generated.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the economists' argument?

  1. A
    The biodegradable packaging alternatives now used by food manufacturers are not significantly more expensive to produce than traditional plastic packaging.
  2. The nation did not substantially increase the proportion of its plastic waste that is diverted from municipal landfills to recycling programs or export markets over the past ten years.Cevap
  3. C
    Most of the plastic waste deposited in municipal landfills ten years ago was not generated by companies outside the food manufacturing sector.
  4. D
    Any substantial financial penalty applied to food manufacturers will result in those manufacturers adopting environmentally friendly packaging alternatives.
  5. E
    The decrease in the volume of plastic waste in the nation's landfills began exactly when the tax on plastic packaging was implemented.

Cevap

The assumption that the nation did not substantially increase the proportion of plastic waste diverted to recycling or export markets.
The argument leaps from a decrease in plastic waste at municipal landfills to the conclusion that less plastic waste is being generated overall due to a switch to biodegradable packaging. For this causal conclusion to hold, the economists must assume that the missing plastic waste didn't simply go to a different destination. The correct answer acts as a 'Defender' assumption by ruling out the alternative explanation that the plastic waste was merely diverted to recycling centers or exported. If we apply the Negation Technique and assume the nation DID substantially increase its diversion of plastic waste to recycling or exports, it completely explains the 30 percent drop in landfills. This destroys the argument's claim that the drop was due to a reduction in generated waste.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus to identify the premises and the main conclusion.
Premise: Landfill plastic waste dropped by 30 percent after a packaging tax was implemented. Conclusion: The tax forced food manufacturers to switch to biodegradable packaging, reducing generated plastic waste.
Understanding the exact scope of the evidence and the conclusion is required to spot logical gaps.
2
Identify the logical gap or flaw in the argument.
The argument assumes that a reduction in 'landfilled' waste equals a reduction in 'generated' waste. It ignores the possibility that the waste is still being generated but is going somewhere else.
Causal conclusions based on correlational evidence are vulnerable to alternative causes or explanations.
3
Evaluate the options using the Negation Technique to find the necessary Defender assumption.
Negating the correct option reveals that if waste diversion (recycling/export) increased substantially, it would perfectly explain the landfill drop without needing the manufacturers to switch packaging. Thus, ruling out this alternative is logically necessary.
A necessary assumption is a statement that must be true for the conclusion to hold; if its negation ruins the argument, it is the correct answer.

Anahtar Kavram

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender Assumptions)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Ruling Out Alternate Explanations (Defender)

Bu konudan daha fazla soru