Q16 - An increased number of oil spills

[WaltGrace1983]

I have a question about this stimulus. There seem to be two arguments in the "industry representative's" passage. One says...

Industry has both an expertise in handling oil and an understanding of the cost entailed
→
Industry alone should be responsible for devising safety standards

In addition, there is another argument that says...

Double-hull creates new safety issues and would be burdensome to the industry and consumers
→
Implementing a double-hull proposal isn't feasible

Now clearly the question is primarily concerned with the latter argument, probably because that argument mores goes against the environmentalist's claim that "govt. has to require oil companies to put double hulls on their tankers..."

However, could the question have asked us to strengthen either argument? If not, why not?

Just to help others out if any other questions exist, (B) (C) and (E) do not relate to the argument at all. Meanwhile, (A) weakens because it shows why the double-hull might be a good thing. (D) is the right answer because it explains more about the safety issues, perhaps showing why these issues make the double-hull not so feasible.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great post!

I see what you're saying about the Industry Rep's two different arguments.

The question stem would force us to consider the latter argument if that were the only position against the environmentalist's position.

But since the IR's position that "the industry alone should devise safety standards" does butt heads with the E's position that "the government must regulate safety standards", I think either of the IR's arguments is fair game.

In a sense, you could say that (B) and (E) somewhat strengthen the Environmentalist's position that government intervention is a good idea (assuming we think of "response teams" and "a cleanup fund" as good ideas).

Nice work!

[WaltGrace1983]

In a sense, you could say that (B) and (E) somewhat strengthen the Environmentalist's position that government intervention is a good idea (assuming we think of "response teams" and "a cleanup fund" as good ideas).

Nice work!

Do you mean that (B) and (E) would help the Environmentalist's argument that says...

Increased number of oil spills and consequent damage
→
We need stricter safety standards for the oil industry?

As in that (B) and (E) would strengthen the argument because it shows how these stricter standards would help the problem - i.e. they would make a response team (B) or they would have an oil-spill cleanup fund (E).

Also, I am thinking about really how this strengthens the argument. It seems to just strengthen the premise. (D) basically says, "see?! I told you it creates safety issues! Look! Here is an example!" I asked about this in another thread on 16.2.18 so if it has already been answered by that time then feel free to disregard.

[gaoshunqi]

Great post and great response. Didn't look at this argument from this angle before seeing this thread.

Although I'm wondering if choice E strengthens the IR's argument at all. If the industry is already being required to maneuver a new financial project, I.e., the cleanup fund, wouldn't it be more likely that the proposed stricter regulation would be "burdensome to the industry"?


Thanks in advance.

[ottoman]

I know D is the answer choice and pretty clear.

I have some difficulty in ruling out C: wouldn't it be the fact that existing tankers will be refitted with double hulls in the next 20 years or else be retired be burdensome to the industry? thus it will be a strengthener even though we need to make some assumptions?

[ohthatpatrick]

It's a pretty lenient standard.

According to this legislation, they can do NOTHING to their single hull tankers for 20 years. At that point, they can just retire those tankers and make sure the new ones are double-hull.

There's no imperative to retro-fit (for 20 years), so there's no immediate cost to what (C) describes.

We would have to know that buying new tankers with double hulls are much more expensive than buying new tankers with single hulls, and we'd have to know that companies need to buy new tankers within the next 20 years, in order to think there's any expense being forced on the industry for the next two decades.