reply2spg wrote:Can Somebody please explain C

Opponent of oil shore oil drilling: The projected bene! ts of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.

Proponent of oil shore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

The drilling proponent's reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by:

(A) Offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent.
(B) Claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate.
(C) Pointing out that the drilling opponent's argument is a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing.
(D) Citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported.
(E) Proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent's evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent.

No OA

IMO D

diebeatsthegmat wrote:

reply2spg wrote:Can Somebody please explain C

Opponent of oil shore oil drilling: The projected bene! ts of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.

Proponent of oil shore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

The drilling proponent's reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by:

(A) Offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent.
(B) Claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate.
(C) Pointing out that the drilling opponent's argument is a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing.
(D) Citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported.
(E) Proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent's evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent.

No OA

IMO D

my answer is D.
hey, why do you practice such an argument without the answer?

reply2spg wrote:Because these are the arguments provided by Veritas in its CR session for Indian student. I will PM Brian, Veritas Instructor, to guide us on all these questions.

diebeatsthegmat wrote:

reply2spg wrote:Can Somebody please explain C

Opponent of oil shore oil drilling: The projected bene! ts of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.

Proponent of oil shore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

The drilling proponent's reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by:

(A) Offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent.
(B) Claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate.
(C) Pointing out that the drilling opponent's argument is a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing.
(D) Citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported.
(E) Proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent's evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent.

No OA

IMO D

hehehehe seems that brian forgot us!!! its the third i read this CR and no OA still

my answer is D.
hey, why do you practice such an argument without the answer?

reply2spg wrote:Can Somebody please explain C

Opponent of oil shore oil drilling: The projected bene! ts of drilling new oil wells in certain areas in the outer continental shelf are not worth the risk of environmental disaster. The oil already being extracted from these areas currently provides only 4 percent of our country's daily oil requirement, and the new wells would only add one-half of 1 percent.

Proponent of oil shore oil drilling: Don't be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.

The drilling proponent's reply to the drilling opponent proceeds by:

(A) Offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent.
(B) Claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate.
(C) Pointing out that the drilling opponent's argument is a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing.
(D) Citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported.
(E) Proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent's evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent.

No OA

IMO D

David@VeritasPrep wrote:Hey guys! You have not been forgotten...

The official answer to this question is D.

The analogy to farms is made because it is quite clear that no one farm is going to supply much of the total food needed by the nation. It is questionable as to whether this is a good analogy since all of the far offshore wells put together only add up to 4 percent of the nation's oil, whereas all of the farms put together more than supply the nation's food (assuming this is the U.S.)

Answer choice C seems interesting, but this would literally require the proponent to argue that drilling opponent is misusing a form of argument. Such as saying, "it is normally acceptable to illustrate an argument with various examples, but you have specifically chosen the only three examples that support your cause." That would be pointing out a misuse.

Instead of this, the proponent simply offers an analogy.

So, you guys were right all along!

Hope that helps...

goyalsau wrote:Can any body please explain in option D
D) Citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported.

What does it mean by Conclusion is Strikingly Unsupported.[/quote


I would be equally helpfull to me if somone explains what goyalsau has asked for.

David@VeritasPrep wrote:Hey guys! You have not been forgotten...

The official answer to this question is D.

The analogy to farms is made because it is quite clear that no one farm is going to supply much of the total food needed by the nation. It is questionable as to whether this is a good analogy since all of the far offshore wells put together only add up to 4 percent of the nation's oil, whereas all of the farms put together more than supply the nation's food (assuming this is the U.S.)

Answer choice C seems interesting, but this would literally require the proponent to argue that drilling opponent is misusing a form of argument. Such as saying, "it is normally acceptable to illustrate an argument with various examples, but you have specifically chosen the only three examples that support your cause." That would be pointing out a misuse.

Instead of this, the proponent simply offers an analogy.

So, you guys were right all along!

Hope that helps...

lokesh r wrote:

goyalsau wrote:Can any body please explain in option D
D) Citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported.

What does it mean by Conclusion is Strikingly Unsupported.[/quote


I would be equally helpfull to me if somone explains what goyalsau has asked for.

I don't know we will find any body for the explanation..
Guys please HELP.

goyalsau wrote:

lokesh r wrote:

goyalsau wrote:Can any body please explain in option D
D) Citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported.

What does it mean by Conclusion is Strikingly Unsupported.[/quote


I would be equally helpfull to me if somone explains what goyalsau has asked for.

I don't know we will find any body for the explanation..
Guys please HELP.

Guys please ....

goyalsau wrote:

goyalsau wrote:

lokesh r wrote:

goyalsau wrote:Can any body please explain in option D
D) Citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported.

What does it mean by Conclusion is Strikingly Unsupported.[/quote


I would be equally helpfull to me if somone explains what goyalsau has asked for.

I don't know we will find any body for the explanation..
Guys please HELP.

Guys please ....

reply2spg wrote:It is just mean that conclusion will fall apart or it will not be true.

goyalsau wrote:

goyalsau wrote:

lokesh r wrote:

goyalsau wrote:Can any body please explain in option D
D) Citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported.

What does it mean by Conclusion is Strikingly Unsupported.[/quote


I would be equally helpfull to me if somone explains what goyalsau has asked for.

I don't know we will find any body for the explanation..
Guys please HELP.

Guys please ....