Critical Reasoning

Sam: During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases during a recession, since fewer people commute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Felipe: Why would you think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession, fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.

Which of the following most accurately describes how Felipe's response is related to Sam's argument?

(A) It calls into question the truth of the premises that Sam uses to support his conclusion.
(B) It makes an additional claim that can only be true if Sam's conclusion is false.
(C) It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam's conclusion by his evidence.
(D) It argues that Sam's conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Sam gives to support that conclusion.
(E) It presents an argument showing that the premises in Sam's argument support an absurd conclusion that Sam has overlooked.

Source: Veritas

OA: C

Why is D wrong?? I do not understand it.

Mo2men wrote:Sam: During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases during a recession, since fewer people commute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Felipe: Why would you think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession, fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.

Which of the following most accurately describes how Felipe's response is related to Sam's argument?

(A) It calls into question the truth of the premises that Sam uses to support his conclusion.
(B) It makes an additional claim that can only be true if Sam's conclusion is false.
(C) It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam's conclusion by his evidence.
(D) It argues that Sam's conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Sam gives to support that conclusion.
(E) It presents an argument showing that the premises in Sam's argument support an absurd conclusion that Sam has overlooked.

Source: Veritas

OA: C

Why is D wrong?? I do not understand it.

Consider Sam's conclusion: Air pollution should decrease during a recession because fewer people will drive to work.

Felipe is arguing that air pollution will increase (or at least not decrease) because people will be driving cars that are less fuel efficient. He's certainly not arguing that Sam's conclusion is true, as D states.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Mo2men wrote:Sam: During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases during a recession, since fewer people commute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Felipe: Why would you think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession, fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.

Which of the following most accurately describes how Felipe's response is related to Sam's argument?

(A) It calls into question the truth of the premises that Sam uses to support his conclusion.
(B) It makes an additional claim that can only be true if Sam's conclusion is false.
(C) It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam's conclusion by his evidence.
(D) It argues that Sam's conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Sam gives to support that conclusion.
(E) It presents an argument showing that the premises in Sam's argument support an absurd conclusion that Sam has overlooked.

Source: Veritas

OA: C

Why is D wrong?? I do not understand it.

Consider Sam's conclusion: Air pollution should decrease during a recession because fewer people will drive to work.

Felipe is arguing that air pollution will increase (or at least not decrease) because people will be driving cars that are less fuel efficient. He's certainly not arguing that Sam's conclusion is true, as D states.

Ù‹When we say I argue that you are right', does not mean that you are not right?? I mean when you argue something then you suspect it.

Thanks

Mo2men wrote:

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Mo2men wrote:Sam: During recessions, unemployment typically rises. Thus, air pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases during a recession, since fewer people commute in cars to jobs and so cars emitting pollutants into the air are used less.

Felipe: Why would you think that air pollution would decrease? During a recession, fewer people can afford to buy new cars, and cars tend to emit more pollutants as they get older.

Which of the following most accurately describes how Felipe's response is related to Sam's argument?

(A) It calls into question the truth of the premises that Sam uses to support his conclusion.
(B) It makes an additional claim that can only be true if Sam's conclusion is false.
(C) It presents an additional consideration that weakens the support given to Sam's conclusion by his evidence.
(D) It argues that Sam's conclusion is true, although not for the reasons Sam gives to support that conclusion.
(E) It presents an argument showing that the premises in Sam's argument support an absurd conclusion that Sam has overlooked.

Source: Veritas

OA: C

Why is D wrong?? I do not understand it.

Consider Sam's conclusion: Air pollution should decrease during a recession because fewer people will drive to work.

Felipe is arguing that air pollution will increase (or at least not decrease) because people will be driving cars that are less fuel efficient. He's certainly not arguing that Sam's conclusion is true, as D states.

Ù‹When we say I argue that you are right', does not mean that you are not right?? I mean when you argue something then you suspect it.

Thanks

One can argue for something or against something. If I argue that you're right, I agree with you. If I argue that you're wrong, I disagree with you. If I argue with you, we disagree about something.

Mo2men wrote:Why is D wrong?? I do not understand it.

When a CR has two speakers, they will have OPPOSING CONCLUSIONS:
If the first speaker concludes that X is true, then the second speaker will conclude that X is NOT true.

D: Felipe's response argues that Sam's conclusion is true.
Since Felipe's conclusion must be the OPPOSITE of Sam's, D does not correctly describe Felipe's response.
Eliminate D.

To argue that X is true = to SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION that X is true.