QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The drilling proponent concludes that the opponent’s proposal is ridiculous.
REASONING: He makes an analogy to farms. Each individual farm does not provide very much food compared to the needs of the nation as a whole. Yet collectively the farms are valuable. So too with oil production.
ANALYSIS: The proponent makes use of an analogy. However he ignores the environmental aspect of the opponent’s argument. A single farm doesn’t usually pose a major environmental threat.
- The proponent offers no evidence. They respond with an analogy.
- The proponent didn’t disagree with the statistics. They just disagreed with how to interpret them.
- The proponent didn’t argue with the opponent’s technique or claim that the technique was legitimate in other circumstances.
- CORRECT. The proponent claims his analogy is parallel. The analogy’s conclusion is obviously wrong. The proponents hopes to use that to show that the opponent’s conclusion is also wrong.
- The drilling opponent’s evidence doesn’t support the proponent’s conclusion. The opponent’s evidence includes the risk of environmental harm.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions