question archive Read the following passage and represent the main argument (that is, not including sub-arguments) in standard form, specifying what kind of support the premise(s) provide the conclusion (what kind of arrow would you draw?)
Read the following passage and represent the main argument (that is, not including sub-arguments) in standard form, specifying what kind of support the premise(s) provide the conclusion (what kind of arrow would you draw?)
Subject:PhilosophyPrice:2.86 Bought7
Read the following passage and represent the main argument (that is, not including sub-arguments) in standard form, specifying what kind of support the premise(s) provide the conclusion (what kind of arrow would you draw?). Then evaluate of the whole argument. For each part of the argument, consider the following questions:
1. Support: If the premises were true, would they provide a good reason to accept the conclusion?
2. Truth: Are the premises true?
Justify your answers. If you cannot determine whether a premise is true, you should explain what kind of evidence would be relevant. How could you find out whether the premise was true or not? What kind of source could you use to check?
We are told that global average temperature is supposed to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees by year 2100. Australia's contribution to greenhouse gas production is about 2 per cent of the world's production. Therefore, Australia's contribution to global warming this century would amount to between 0.03 and 0.1 degrees. An ordinary thermometer used in meteorological observations can be read to 0.1 degree, so Australia's contribution over the century would barely register on a thermometer. So although there may be good reasons for reducing this country's greenhouse gas production, we should not delude ourselves that it will be of any practical use in reducing global warming.
Adapted from a letter to The Age newspaper, 2006.
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
A. The entire debate about climate change has been driven by data, for the most part atleast. The conclusion was inferred on the legitimate basis of what Australia actually contributes, to the environmental wellbeing of the planet. The data shows that at the current rate of recorded greenhouse emissions, Australia is just a blip contributor to the overall collective presence of Emissions. Overall, the premise is solid enough to reach that inference.
The Evaluation of the Whole Argument.
The premise of the report is true and the conclusion is logical. Being that the conversation around climate change has been taken away from experts, and now rests in the hands of politicians and activists. There is a tendency to drift from Environmental science to wokeness and virtue signaling occasionally, there by embracing a more radical tone. Climate Change is Real and should be handled intelligently.
However, Serious care should be taken to not undermine the data as insignificant in the grand scheme of things. 0.03 degrees is not Zero, that should be alarming on its own. The difficulty we face in the Climate conversation is that it is being led by insensitive radicals that want to shut down every thing that is not wind and solar, which is not smart in the least bit.
The conclusion should not be that we are deluding ourselves by trying to shrink a statistically ignored number in terms of Greenhouse emissions. It should sound more practical, and include applications to offset the emissions. The more we rally for a tear down without replacement infrastructure, the more we are likely to consider conclusions that will eventually ignore even a more significant data set.
