Top Law Schools

How is (C) wrong in this question about wildlife activists?

The argument concludes that the banning practice failed, because some animals still get electrocuted.

My reasoning for going with (C) is that the author assumed that there are no other possible benefits/advantages to the proposal. If there was other possible benefits, then his conclusion would not hold.

The reason why I eliminated (B) was I thought the word "reject" was too strong, since he only stated that the proposal failed. Maybe despite its failure, it could still be better than other options.

Thoughts?

The columnist argues that a particular argument for banning the practice of stringing tv cables from electric power poles fails. Whether or not there are additional advantages to banning this practice is neither here nor there when it comes to evaluating what the columnist says, for the columnist is not making an overall evaluation of the proposal that this practice should be banned. Answer (C) would only bear on an overall evaluation of whether the practice should be banned.

And to conclude that "this line of argument fails" is to reject a line of argument as, well, a failure.

hereisonehand wrote:The columnist argues that a particular argument for banning the practice of stringing tv cables from electric power poles fails. Whether or not there are additional advantages to banning this practice is neither here nor there when it comes to evaluating what the columnist says, for the columnist is not making an overall evaluation of the proposal that this practice should be banned. Answer (C) would only bear on an overall evaluation of whether the practice should be banned.

That clears it up!