Jump to content
Urch Forums

Identification


akasans

Recommended Posts

Environmentalist: The use of snowmobiles in the vast park north of Milville creates

 

unacceptable levels of air pollution and should be banned.

 

 

Milville business spokesperson: Snowmobiling brings many out-of-towners to

 

Milville in winter months, to the great financial benefit of many local residents. So,

 

economics dictate that we put up with the pollution.

 

 

Environmentalist: I disagree: A great many cross-country skiers are now kept

 

from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate.

 

 

Environmentalist responds to the business spokesperson by doing which of the following?

 

 

A. Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome can derive from only

 

one set of circumstances

 

B. Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome is outweighed by negative

 

aspects associated with producing that outcome

 

C. Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved

 

in greater degree by a different means

 

D. Claiming that the spokesperson is deliberately misrepresenting the environmentalist’s

 

position in order to be better able to attack it

 

E. Denying that an effect that the spokesperson presents as having benefited a certain

 

group of people actually benefited those people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very close between A , B and C.

I wud pick A.

Desirable outcome - More tourist visiting the town

Businessperson assumes that only snowmobiling brings tourists.

Environmentalist attacks this assumption by saying that there are other means of achieving the same desired outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I will pick E..

reason :

Denying that an effect (to the great financial benefit) that the spokesperson

presents as having benefited a certain group of people (many local residents) actually

benefited ( those people skiers are now kept from visiting ).

 

Can everybody please CHECK if I am correct or NOT.

 

(Transyt can u please!)

 

Suggestions are welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very close between A , B and C.

I wud pick A.

Desirable outcome - More tourist visiting the town

Businessperson assumes that only snowmobiling brings tourists.

Environmentalist attacks this assumption by saying that there are other means of achieving the same desired outcome.

dsk I think in the option A. The Envin. Never talks about " OTHER MEANS".

 

Saurabh Malpani

Link to comment
Share on other sites

©

 

Maintaining that the benefit that the spokesperson desires could be achieved

in greater degree by a different mean -

 

The Environmentalist says that less people are actually showing up due to pollution than would show up if there was no snow-mobiling, so the benfits of increased economic output for the local poulation could acheived in greater degree by a different mean i.e. other than snow-mobiling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vote for B.

Challenging an assumption that certain desirable outcome (great financial benefit of many local residents as a result of many out-of-towners ) is outweighed by negative aspects (A great many cross-country skiers are now kept from visiting Milville by the noise and pollution that snowmobiles generate) associated with producing that outcome

I think C is quite similar to B, however, as no other different means is mentioned clearly in the context, B would be my choice. Hope to see OA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

IMO, E is correct.

The effect here is 'lot of out of towners coming and snowmobiling'. The spokesman says that this effect helped the townsfolks financially, even though there was some pollution. The environmentalist says that the effect is not actually benefitial - it keeps the cross-country skiers from coming, resulting in lesser financial benefit for locals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, E is correct.

The effect here is 'lot of out of towners coming and snowmobiling'. The spokesman says that this effect helped the townsfolks financially, even though there was some pollution. The environmentalist says that the effect is not actually benefitial - it keeps the cross-country skiers from coming, resulting in lesser financial benefit for locals.

 

I picked C, I think E is wrong because snowmobiling poepl help the tons financial situation. Cross country skiers are from out of town, so the benefits are 2 different groups. I hope that was a little clear at least LOL. I really would love to see the OA for this one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...