Soru

Zorluk: ZorEvaluate the Argument

Urban Planner: To reduce our municipality's soaring electricity expenses, we should replace all conventional streetlamps in the downtown district with genetically engineered bioluminescent flora. These plants emit a steady glow without drawing any power from the grid. Therefore, implementing this replacement will drastically lower the downtown district's overall operational budget while preserving the area's nighttime usability.

Evaluate the argument by applying the Variance Test. Match each hypothetical factual discovery about the bioluminescent flora (left) to its corresponding logical impact on the planner's conclusion (right).

  • Yes, the flora require an expensive, specialized nutrient gel applied weekly to survive urban pollution.Weakens the conclusion by demonstrating that a hidden maintenance expense will offset the anticipated electricity savings.
  • No, the flora are entirely self-sustaining and require less physical upkeep than conventional streetlamps.Strengthens the conclusion by eliminating the possibility that unforeseen upkeep expenses would hinder the goal of lowering the budget.
  • Yes, the light emitted by the flora meets or exceeds all current municipal standards for pedestrian and traffic visibility.Strengthens the conclusion by confirming that the proposed alternative effectively satisfies the requirement of preserving nighttime usability.
  • No, the flora emit a faint glow that cannot penetrate common urban fog or rain, making navigation hazardous.Weakens the conclusion by revealing a functional deficiency that compromises the area's usability.

Cevap

The correct pairings accurately map each polar outcome to its precise logical effect on the two core claims of the argument: the reduction of the operational budget and the preservation of nighttime usability.
Applying the Variance Test requires determining how opposite answers to a question impact the argument. If a 'Yes' weakens and a 'No' strengthens (or vice versa), the issue is highly relevant. The correct matches successfully align each factual discovery with its logical impact on either the budget premise or the visibility premise.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the core argument structure
Conclusion: Replacing streetlamps with flora will lower the operational budget and preserve usability. Premise: Flora emit light without drawing grid power.
Identifying the two distinct sub-claims (budget reduction and usability preservation) is necessary to evaluate the argument.
2
Apply the Variance Test to the budget claim
The budget claim assumes no new hidden costs will offset the electricity savings.
Evaluating an argument requires identifying unstated assumptions that could make or break the conclusion.
3
Match budget-related discoveries
Paired the expensive nutrient gel discovery with weakening the budget claim, and self-sustaining flora with strengthening it.
A 'Yes' outcome to hidden costs weakens the financial conclusion, while a 'No' outcome strengthens it by removing a potential obstacle.
4
Match usability-related discoveries
Paired adequate visibility with strengthening the usability claim, and the faint glow in fog with weakening it.
A 'Yes' outcome to meeting standards strengthens the functional conclusion, while a 'No' outcome directly weakens it.

Anahtar Kavram

The Variance Test consists of supplying polar opposite responses (e.g., Yes/No) to an evaluation question and analyzing whether one response strengthens the argument while the other weakens it.
Bu soruyu puanla