Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations?Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect.Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. A hot spot, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Nio cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homorganic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homorganic origin"?In this passage the author is primarily interested in
The CEO of Blacks International has proposed replacing their Marmacil semiconductor manufacturing equipment with Fasttech equipment since it costs 30 percent less to train new staff on the Fasttech equipment. Those opposed to the change have pointed out the savings in training cost does not justify the change.Instead, they suggested that the company hire only people who already know how to use the Marmacil equipment.Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the objection to the replacement of Marmacil semiconductor manufacturing equipment with Fasttechs?
Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by "homogenic factors," i.e., human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well grounded would it be for such affirmations?Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect.Most of these scientists admit that the mean oceanic temperature has risen globally in the last several decades. But this generalization depends upon how accurate measurements may be, not just for samples, but also for the whole Earth. A hot spot, for example the now four year old hot spot near New Guinea which is part of the El Nio cycle, does not count by itself because it might be balanced by cold spots elsewhere. And the fact of the matter is that "whole earth measurements" are still rare and primitive in the simple sense that we simply do not have enough thermometers out. Secondly, even if we had enough thermometers, a simply synchronic whole earth measurement over three decades is but a blip in the diachronic history of ice age cycles over the last tens of thousands of years. Thirdly, even if we know that the earth is now heating up, has an ever increasing ozone hole, and from this strange weather effects can be predicted, how much of this is due to homogenic factors, such as CFCs, CO2 increases, hydrocarbon burning, and the like? Is it really the case, as Science magazine claimed in l990, "24% of greenhouse encouraging gases are of homogenic origin"?The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the greenhouse effect?
A pharmaceutical company developed a new diuretic reported to cause fewer side effects than their old diuretic, which was still being manufactured. During the first year that both were sold, the earlier medication far outsold the new one; the manufacturer thus concluded that reducing side effects was not the customers' primary consideration.Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the manufacturers conclusion?
Republicans also benefited from the enthusiastic and well-organized support of conservative Christians concerning about social issues, including abortion.
Unemployment in Winston County has risen only 4% since I took office. Under my predecessor, unemployment rose 14%. Clearly, my economic policies are far more effective.Which of the following must be true in order for this argument to be valid?
