Local authorities are considering an amendment to the litter law that would raise the fine for littering in the
community picnic area to $1,000. Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering
fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community
picnic area. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the
amount of litter in the picnic area. Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and
unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether. In the argument, the two portions in boldface
play which of the following roles?
• The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.
• The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second
raises evidence against this prediction.
• The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this
fact.
• The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.
• The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a
line of reasoning to support this prediction.
e?
community picnic area to $1,000. Since the inception of the litter law, incremental increases in the littering
fine have proven to be consistently effective at further reducing the amount of litter in the community
picnic area. However, raising the fine to $1,000 would actually have the unintended effect of increasing the
amount of litter in the picnic area. Picnic area users would perceive this fine to be unreasonable and
unenforceable, and would disregard the litter law altogether. In the argument, the two portions in boldface
play which of the following roles?
• The first is irrefutable evidence that the author offers in support of a prediction; the second is that prediction.
• The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will be repeated in the case at hand; the second
raises evidence against this prediction.
• The first is a statement of fact that the author accepts to be true; the second is presented as a consequence of this
fact.
• The first is evidence that weakens the main position that the author defends; the second is that position.
• The first is a statement of causation that the author predicts will not hold in the case at hand; the second offers a
line of reasoning to support this prediction.
e?
