Researcher: Soils are adversely affected by road salts used to melt ice and snow, particularly along roadsides and salt storage...

Phase 1: Owning the Dataset

Argument Analysis Table

Argument Structure

• Main conclusion: Sand should replace road salts for winter treatment
• Supporting evidence: Salt causes severe soil contamination that inhibits plant growth
• Key assumption: Sand is a viable alternative that avoids these problems
• Viewpoint: Agriculture official using environmental research to support policy change

Phase 2: Question Analysis & Prethinking

Understanding What Each Part Asks

• Part 1 (Most strengthen): We need information that makes the case for sand stronger - either by showing salt is worse than we thought or sand is a good alternative
• Part 2 (Most weaken): We need information that undermines the case for sand - either by showing salt is necessary or sand is inadequate

Prethinking for Each Part

For Strengthening:

• Additional environmental/health harms from salt
• Evidence that salt damage affects important areas (like farmland)
• Economic costs of salt damage
• Evidence that sand works well as an alternative

For Weakening:

• Sand doesn't work as well for road safety
• Salt is necessary despite environmental costs
• The environmental damage is limited or manageable
• Sand has its own problems

Phase 3: Answer Choice Evaluation

Evaluating Each Choice

Choice A: "A high number of road accidents are attributable to untreated roads in winter."

• This emphasizes the need for some treatment but doesn't specifically compare salt vs sand
• Could potentially weaken if it implies we need the most effective treatment (salt)
• Not the strongest for either part

Choice B: "The cost of removing salts from soil in abandoned salt yards is high."

• This strengthens the case against salt by adding economic costs to environmental damage
• Shows long-term financial burden of salt use
• Good strengthener but not directly about agricultural impact

Choice C: "High chloride concentrations in drinking water supplies have a negative impact on health."

• This strengthens by adding health concerns to environmental concerns
• Expands the problem beyond just soil/plants
• Another good strengthener

Choice D: "Sand is much less effective than salt at making roads safe to drive in winter conditions."

• This directly weakens the official's case
• If sand doesn't work well, it's not a viable alternative regardless of environmental benefits
• This is the clearest weakener

Choice E: "Runoff from roads is often absorbed by farmland."

• This strongly strengthens the agriculture official's case
• Directly connects road salt damage to agricultural lands
• Perfect for an agriculture official's argument

The Correct Answers

For Part 1 (Most strengthen): Choice E - "Runoff from roads is often absorbed by farmland."

• This directly connects the salt damage to agricultural interests
• An agriculture official would be particularly concerned about farmland contamination
• Makes the environmental damage more relevant to food production

For Part 2 (Most weaken): Choice D - "Sand is much less effective than salt at making roads safe to drive in winter conditions."

• This directly undermines the viability of the proposed alternative
• If sand can't keep roads safe, the environmental benefits don't matter
• Creates a conflict between environmental protection and public safety

Common Traps to Highlight

Why Choice C isn't the best strengthener: While health impacts strengthen the case against salt, the agriculture official would be most concerned with agricultural impacts. Choice E directly addresses farming, making it more relevant to this specific official's argument.

Why Choice A isn't the best weakener: While it shows the importance of road treatment, it doesn't specifically compare salt and sand. Choice D directly states that the proposed alternative (sand) is inferior, making it a much stronger weakener.