📢 Too many exams? Don’t know which one suits you best? Book Your Free Expert 👉 call Now!
  • google app store apple app store
    • ✖

      Question

      In the question below, a premise is provided. Choose

      the option that represents the statements that most strengthen the argument. Premise: A comprehensive analysis of urban development over the last three decades has found that cities that implement "Green Infrastructure" (such as urban forests and permeable pavements) see a 15 percent reduction in annual flood-related repair costs compared to cities that rely solely on traditional concrete drainage. The report, published by a consortium of environmental engineers and urban planners, suggests that natural solutions are more resilient than man-made ones. This finding is particularly significant at a time when many growing metropolises are debating whether to invest in expensive underground tunnels or cheaper, nature-based surfaces. Which of the following, if true, STRENGTHENS the argument? 1. The study found that the cooling effect of urban forests significantly reduces the energy costs of nearby residential buildings during summer months. 2. The report demonstrated that Green Infrastructure remains effective even in regions with very high population density, where critics previously claimed it would fail. 3. The research observed that cities adopting these natural solutions experienced fewer long-term structural cracks in their primary road networks during extreme weather shifts.
      A Only 1 Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
      B Only 2 Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
      C Only 1 and 2 Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
      D Only 2 and 3 Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
      E All of the above Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

      Solution

      Analysis of the Argument: The core argument is that "Green Infrastructure" is a superior and more resilient alternative to traditional drainage for managing flood-related costs and urban resilience. Statement 2 is correct: This strengthens the argument by countering a common objection (the claim that it would fail in high-density areas). By validating the effectiveness of the solution in challenging environments, it makes the original claim more robust. Statement 3 is correct: This provides additional evidence of the "resilience" mentioned in the premise. If these solutions also prevent structural road damage, it further supports the argument that natural solutions are more effective than man-made ones for city maintenance. Statement 1 is incorrect: While positive, this statement discusses "energy costs" and "cooling effects." The primary argument is focused on "flood-related costs" and "drainage resilience." This statement is a "distractor" because it deals with a different benefit (temperature) rather than strengthening the specific claim about structural resilience and flood management.

      Practice Next
      More Strong and Weak Argument Questions

      Relevant for Exams:

      ask-question