Q3 - Editorial: The legislature is considering allowing...

[Carlystern]

Will someone break this question and the answer down for me?


This was one, among MANY, I got wrong!

Carly

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your post! This is a strengthen question, so our first task is to define the argument core. Here it is:

Premise: Oil drilling began at Alphin Bay 5 years ago, and Alphin Bay is marred by drilling platforms, industrial sprawl, and pipelines

Conclusion: Oil drilling using modern techniques at Cape Simmons Nature Preserve would damage the environment

Did you catch how "modern techniques" shows up in the conclusion but not in the premise? The author assumes here that the oil drilling at Alphin Bay is similar to the oil drilling at Cape Simmons. Yet while we know modern drilling techniques will be used at Cape Simmons, we don’t know if they were used at Alphin Bay. If the two sites use drastically different techniques then the comparison between the two is moot.

(D) gets at this assumption and strengthens the argument. It suggests that there have been no significant changes in oil drilling techniques since drilling began at Alphin Bay. The comparison between the two sites is therefore valid.

(A) is irrelevant. Will the drilling impact the landscape or not? It doesn't matter how pristine a site currently is.
(B) is irrelevant. We’re evaluating the "supporter’s" claim, not the company’s.
(C) is irrelevant. The editorialist is arguing about whether or not the drilling will cause environmental damage, not whether or not the drilling should happen.
(E) is irrelevant. Other industries?

Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.

[wxpttbh]

I have question on D for I don't think it is strong to support the non innovation in drilling techniques. There may no significant changes in oil drilling methods in past five years. We can not eliminate the possibility that technique which will be used in Cape Simmons Nature Preserve is totally new and superior to techniques currently used in Alphin Bay.