PT1,S1,Q9-Fines levied against those responsible for certain

[b91302310]

Hello,

I made both (A) and (E) as contender. However, I could not know why (E) is not perfect. Is it because we are sure about whether fines will address public's environment awareness ?

Could anyone explain it ?

Thanks!

[noah]

Happy to help. Let's start at the beginning.

The conclusion of the argument is that companies that might have environmental accidents will install safeguards against them. Why? Because the costs of the fines for such accidents are more than the costs of preventing the accident and companies value their profits.

Any gaps? For one, who is to say the company can predict potential environmental hazards? Also, perhaps they can't predict the costs. This latter gap is what (A) hinges on. If businesses greatly underestimate the risk of these accidents, they won't be motivated to put in the safeguards.

(B) is out of scope as it introduces long and short term issues.
(C) is out of scope -- the environmentally "right" thing is never discussed.
(D) is out of scope - how the business treat the fines is not discussed or relevant.
(E) is similarly out of scope. Even if businesses are starting to exploit our environmental awareness, they still may want to install these safeguards to protect their profits. This answer does not address the core of the argument.

Does that clear it up? It may be that you're not narrowing down the argument to the question core.

[onguyen228]

Does anyone have another explanation on why (A) is correct and (D) is wrong? I used POE and got (D) as my final answer. (A) just seems like it was supporting the premise.

Thanks!

[A.june]

Hi, @ onguyen228

The reason D is not correct is because if we accept that fines are an ordinary expense, wouldn't it still make sense to install the safeguards. After all the fines are higher than the safeguards will be. Where as A gives us, we don't think its going to happen so why waste money on the safeguards.