Loading...
In setting environmental standards for industry and others to meet, it is inadvisable to require the best results that state-of-the-art technology can achieve. Current technology is able to detect and eliminate even extremely minute amounts of contaminants, but at a cost that is exorbitant relative to the improvement achieved. So it would be reasonable instead to set standards by taking into account all of the current and future risks involved.
The argument given concerning the reasonable way to set standards presupposes that
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In setting environmental standards for industry and others to meet, it is inadvisable to require the best results that state-of-the-art technology can achieve. |
|
| Current technology is able to detect and eliminate even extremely minute amounts of contaminants, but at a cost that is exorbitant relative to the improvement achieved. |
|
| So it would be reasonable instead to set standards by taking into account all of the current and future risks involved. |
|
The argument starts by rejecting maximum technology standards, then explains why (cost vs. benefit problem), and finally suggests an alternative approach based on risk assessment.
Environmental standards should be set by considering all current and future risks rather than requiring the best results that current technology can achieve.
The author uses a cost-benefit analysis to show that maximum technology standards are unreasonable, then proposes risk-based standards as a more practical alternative.
Assumption - We need to find what the author must believe is true for their argument to work. This means finding unstated beliefs that, if false, would make the conclusion fall apart.
The argument makes precise claims about cost-effectiveness (exorbitant costs vs. minimal improvement) and recommends a risk-based approach instead of maximum technology standards.
To find assumptions, we need to identify gaps in the author's reasoning. The author jumps from 'current tech is too expensive for minimal gains' to 'we should use risk-based standards instead.' We need to find what beliefs must be true for this jump to make sense. We'll look for unstated connections between cost-effectiveness and risk assessment.
This choice suggests the author assumes industry currently meets existing environmental standards. However, the argument doesn't depend on whether industry is currently compliant with standards. The author is discussing how to set future standards in a reasonable way, regardless of current compliance levels. The argument works whether industry is meeting current standards or not.
This choice identifies what the argument must assume - that there are effective ways to take into account all relevant risks from different contamination levels. The author recommends setting standards by considering 'all of the current and future risks involved.' But if there were no effective methods to assess these risks, then this proposed approach would be useless. The argument only makes sense if we can actually implement meaningful risk-based assessments.
This choice suggests the author assumes only industry-generated contaminants matter. However, the argument mentions 'industry and others,' clearly indicating that non-industrial sources of contamination are also relevant. The reasoning about cost-effectiveness applies to all contamination sources, not just industrial ones.
This choice claims the author assumes it's inexpensive to prevent large amounts of contaminants. Actually, the argument doesn't make any claims about the cost of preventing large amounts of contamination. The author only discusses the high cost of removing extremely minute amounts using state-of-the-art technology. The argument is consistent with prevention of large amounts being either costly or inexpensive.
This choice suggests the author assumes minute amounts of contaminants can be poisonous. While this might explain why we care about contamination at all, the argument doesn't depend on this assumption. The author's reasoning is purely cost-benefit focused - even if minute amounts were somewhat harmful, the argument would still hold that the costs of removal are exorbitant relative to benefits achieved.