khurram wrote:Many plant varieties used in industrially developed nations to improve cultivated crops come from lessdeveloped nations. No compensation is paid on the grounds that the plants used are "the common heritage of humanity." Such reasoning is, however,
flawed. After all, no one suggests that coal, oil, and ores should be extracted without payment.

Which of the following best describes an aspect of the method used by the author in the argument above?

A The author proceeds from a number of specific observations to a tentative generalization.
B The author applies to the case under discussion facts about phenomena assumed to be similar in some relevant respect.
C A position is strengthened by showing that the opposite of that position would have logically absurd consequences.
D A line of reasoning is called into question on the grounds that it confuses cause and effect in a causal relation.
E An argument is analyzed by separating statements of fact from individual value judgments.

Stuart Kovinsky wrote: Most of the time we can predict the answer to this kind of question. In this case, the author introduces a new example (coal, oil, ores) to try to prove her point. We generally call this technique "arguing by analogy". Our prediction is "using an unrelated example that the author thinks is similar to the scenario in question" (which is a long-winded way of saying "analogy").