Q11 - Alan: Government subsidies have

[carly.applebaum]

i eliminated A and B because "other regions" are irrelevant. but i dont understand why C is correct. Is it correct because betty talks about "total output" and C talks about net gain? Can you also explain why D and E are incorrect?

Also, in a question like this where both 11 and 12 refer to the same person's argument, is it okay to just kind of write off alan's argument. i tried to do conditional logic for alan's but it got kind of messy. and then that logic work seemed unnecessary since both 11 and 12 deal with just betty.

thanks!

[maryadkins]

Betty's argument is:

erosion in Rochelle is caused by the floods which will end after the damn is built

-->

Rochelle's total output will stabilize

(C) is necessary because if we negate it, her argument crumbles. Negated version: The current yearly output that will be permanently underwater after the damn is completed will NOT be at least matched by additional yearly output on the remaining land. If this happens, output would go down, i.e. total output wouldn't be at its present level.

You're right that (A) and (B) are out of scope.

(D) isn't a critical assumption. We don't have to assume anything about how much the damn will cost for the government. We weren't told anything about government costs. For all we know, the government will operate the damn regardless of how much it costs.

(E) isn't necessary because Betty's argument isn't about the new techniques. It's about the damn. She doesn't need the government to afford the techniques.

Hope this helps.