PT 48, S4, Q10 The proposed coal-burning electric plant

[bbirdwell]

10. (E)
Question Type: Assumption
As indicated by the argument structure and the keyword "should," the conclusion of the argument is that the electric plant should be approved. The supporting premise for this conclusion is that no good arguments have been offered against the plant. The final sentence, beginning with the premise-indicating phrase "After all" states that all arguments against the plant have been presented by competitors. The clear implication here is that the arguments against the plant are not good BECAUSE (After all) they were presented by competitors.

The assumption? That competitors cannot present good arguments. Answer choice (E) states this best. Notice what happens if we negate (E). If arguments made by those with a vested interest in the outcome ARE good arguments, the conclusion is destroyed.

(A) is out of scope (revenue).
(B) is very close. It relates the two pieces of the assumption: vested interest (competitor) and the quality of argument. However, this choice says IF bad argument  vested interest. This is backwards from the argument’s assumption and leaves open the possibility that a party with a vested interest can offer a good argument.
(C) is out of scope (suppliers).
(D) is also tempting, but ultimately incorrect. The author reasons that due to a lack of good opposing arguments, the plant should approved. Not that the plant should be approved because of good supporting arguments. If we negate this assumption _ proposals for which there are good arguments do not need to be approved _ it does not affect the original argument since we do not know of any good arguments having been offered in support of the proposal.