Question

New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

• A. that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.
• B. for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing.
• C. that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish.
• D. for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that it saves seven dollars that would have been spent on extinguishing big fires.
• E. for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent on extinguishing.

Hint:

When assessing an argument, check if the evidence supports or challenges the central claim about effectiveness and efficiency.

Answer 1

Answer: (E)

Step 1: Understanding the argument.
The argument claims that the investment in preventative measures saves money that would otherwise be spent on extinguishing fires. To weaken this argument, we need evidence that challenges the effectiveness or accuracy of these savings.
Step 2: Analyzing the options.
- (A) This is repetitive and doesn’t provide new information to weaken the argument.
- (B) This rephrases the original statement but doesn’t weaken it.
- (C) This slightly changes the structure but doesn’t weaken the core claim.
- (D) This option does not change the meaning or provide evidence against the argument.
- (E) This is the correct answer. It implies that the amount saved is not directly related to big fires being extinguished, which weakens the argument about the effectiveness of the fire management strategy.
Step 3: Conclusion.
The correct answer is (E), as it introduces doubt about the savings from the measures.