QUESTION TEXT: The government has spent heavily to clean…
QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: The government should spend more money on spill prevention, and less on cleanups.
REASONING: The cleanup budget can’t keep pace with the amount of spills. And the cost of cleaning one site is more than the entire prevention budget.
ANALYSIS: This seems like a good argument. By redirecting funds to prevention, the government will not need to spend as much money on cleanup.
The statement in question is a proposal. Whenever anyone tells you what “should” be done, it’s often the conclusion.
___________
- Unsupported speculation? That describes a statement of fact. The argument is saying what the government “should” do. There’s no speculation (guessing) in saying what someone “should” do.
- You have to finish this sentence: “More of the government’s budget should be redirected to preventing spills, therefore _______”
The statement in question doesn’t support any others.
- CORRECT. The statement in question is the main conclusion. We should spend more money on spills, because then we’ll save even more money on cleanup.
- This is another way of saying it is an assumption. That’s not true. It’s advice, not an assumption.
- There’s no other proposal mentioned.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply