Explanation
The argument sets up a couple of conditions:
If /Global warming -> decreased reliance on fossil fuels.
If Economic incentives -> decrease reliance on fossil fuels.
Conclusion: Therefore, /Global warming -> Economic incentives
The error is subtle, but there’s a mix-up in the conditions as they relate to the conclusion. Economic incentives for renewables is not a required condition, it is a sufficient condition. This means that there could be other ways to stop it, just that this one is sufficient. The argument treats economic incentives as a necessary condition for stopping global warming without evidence.
A. This response assumes a direct causality between ending unemployment and ending hunger, without an intermediate actionable step, unlike the original argument which has a clear intermediate requirement.
B. This is a different kind of error. It’s just a converse error. (DE -> GH -> HL, therefore GH -> DE) which just swaps the first condition around.
C. This response doesn’t involve an actionable step to achieve a sub-goal. It merely states a requirement for a requirement, without a means to achieve it.
D. (Correct Response) This has the same mistaken sufficient/necessary relationship. Improving teachers’ salaries may be sufficient to keep them in the profession, but the argument goes on to state that it’s necessary. This is the same error as the initial prompt.
E. This response discusses increased cooperation as a means to an end but does not present a conditional pathway to achieving a broader goal through specific sub-goals.