Q9 - CEO: We have been falsely

[hyewonkim89]

Will someone explain the wording of (C)?

Thanks in advance!

[cyt5015]

I chose the right answer D, but are not able to fully confidently eliminate the rest answers. Can some geek shed some light on that please? Thank you!

[rinagoldfield]

Hi Hye and Cyt!

This is a Flaw question. Lets start with the argument core.

Premises:
An environmentally responsible corporation does all it can to reduce pollution
+
We don’t pollute as much as we used to

Conclusion:
We’re environmentally responsible!

Do you spot the flaw? Well... maybe the company isn’t doing all it can to reduce pollution. Being "not as bad as we used to be" isn’t the same as being good.

(E) gets at this flaw, and is the correct answer.

(A) discusses a point the CEO already covers. He admits that no one can eliminate pollution, and integrates that fact into his argument.

(B) brings in cause and effect, which is out of scope.

(C) talks about a "class" of criticisms. But the CEO talks about a specific criticism (environmental responsibility), not a "class" of criticisms.

(D) is irrelevant. The CEO tells us that the company has succeeded in reducing its pollution, and we must accept that premise as true. There is no gap between "attempt" and "success."

[asafezrati]

Environmentally Responsible -> do all they can to pollute less
Now we pollute less than before
There isn't any method that doesn't pollute
---
We are Env. Responsible.

I see two flaws:
1. A reversal of the conditional.
2. A necessary assumption - if premises 2+3 then the corporation does all it can to pollute less.

But I think E is incomplete in describing the second flaw. Even if there is a production method that would lead to less pollution, maybe it is not within the corporation's reach (a commercial secret of a competitor or something that is way too expensive and thus not viable in this case). In short, it isn't specific enough to be a necessary assumption..

Some more thoughts about the answer choices:
A. The CEO says there are no better methods, but perhaps "do all they can to pollute less" includes development of new and better production methods.
C. Puzzles me, since he does go from one possible explanation for a corporation not being ER (does everything possible to pollute less) to the idea that the corporation is indeed ER (thus canceling out every other possible criticism).

Help?

[contropositive]

I eliminated C but I may have done so for the wrong reason and I don't even understand the meaning of it.
I understand that the specific criticism would be whether or not they're environmentally responsible and there is no other criticism mentioned. But how would this look like in an argument? anyone can give a example please

[tommywallach]

Hey Contro,

I don't understand your question, I'm afraid. Rina's explanation for why (C) is wrong is correct and more or less complete. What doesn't make sense about that?

-t

[contropositive]

Hey Contro,

I don't understand your question, I'm afraid. Rina's explanation for why (C) is wrong is correct and more or less complete. What doesn't make sense about that?

-t

Yes Rina's explanation is correct. I just don't understand what C is saying. What does it mean "...from inapplicability of a specific criticism to a inapplicability of class of criticisms" does it mean part to whole?

[tommywallach]

Not part to whole, but one example of something to the general class in which that example could be categorized.

-t