by noah Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:15 pm
Here's the question (in the future, please put it in the post - makes it a lot easier for us to answer)
Donors often prefer to earmark donations for a particular disaster. Aid organizations, however, send previously stored supplies to the region and then need to replenish the cache for future disasters. Clearly, it's best to allow the organizations to decide how to spend donations.
Which of the following is mentioned as an opposing point to the main conclusion?
Correct: After a natural disaster occurs, many people want to donate to that specific cause.
Incorrect: Aid organizations deplete their cache of previously stored supplies in order to respond to disasters.
I must admit I'm not in love with this question, but let me explain it in case you missed where it was heading. The conclusion is that it's best to allow the organizations to decide, and that's supported by the fact that these organizations send previously stored stuff and need to use donations to replenish for dealing with future disasters (thus making it impossible to say where those donations will go). So, in short, a donor might prefer that their rice should go to helping people after Hurricane Irene, but really they should just hand it over, as the supplies to help in a disaster are drawn from stores.
My issue is that the fact that donors prefer to earmark the donations doesn't actually go right up against the conclusion. Just because a lot of people do X doesn't mean they think they should. But, alas, we must choose what's an opposing point, and clearly that's the better answer.
I hope my dislike for this question helps!
