"In advocating expanded unemployment benefits, someone observed that 'All the European countries have higher unemployment rates than we do but also stronger support systems for the unemployed.' " This argument supporting expanded unemployment benefits can best be countered by arguing that

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Reframing the question in my own words helps set up the analysis: someone argues that since European countries have higher unemployment rates but also stronger support systems, expanding unemployment benefits is warranted. The task is to evaluate which counterargument best challenges the claim that stronger systems justify expanded benefits.
Option a: 'we can not afford stronger support systems' This response addresses the feasibility or financial cost of stronger support systems, not the logical link between higher unemployment and expanding benefits. It does not directly counter the claim about the relationship between unemployment rates and the strength of support systems, so it’s not the strongest rebuttal to the argument given.
Option b: 'stronger support systems have caused higher unemployment' This asserts a causal link from stronger welfare to higher unemployment, which directly challenges the idea that the existence of higher unemployment in Europe justifies expanding unemployment benefits. If you claim that stronger systems cause higher unemployment, you negate the implied rationale that welfare strength should be expanded merely because unemployment is higher; you’re disputing the presumed direction of the relationship and pointing out potential endogeneity or flawed reasoning in the original claim. However, it’s important to note that this is a strong counterargument because it questions the causality being implied, even if the real-world data may involve multiple confounding factors.
Option c: 'we have low unemployment and so don't need stronger support systems' This contradicts the premise that European countries have higher unemployment rates. It also ignores the logic about expanded benefits, making it irrelevant to counter the specific claim that stronger systems are connected to higher unemployment. It’s an inaccurate contrast given the question’s setup.
Option d: 'higher unemployment has forced Europeans to develop stronger support systems' This words the relationship as reverse causation: unemployment leads to stronger welfare, not the other way around. While it offers a different causal direction, it does not directly refute the original assertion that stronger support systems exist alongside higher unemployment as evidence for expansion; rather, it suggests the opposite causal link and may shift the argument offensively rather than weaken the original reasoning.
In summary, option b most directly engages with the core logical structure of the argument by challenging the assumed causality between unemployment levels and the strength of support systems, whereas options a, c, and d either misinterpret the premise or fail to directly address the causal claim being made.

"In advocating expanded unemployment benefits, someone observed that 'All the European countries have higher unemployment rates than we do but also stronger support systems for the unemployed.' " This argument supporting expanded unemployment benefits can best be countered by arguing that

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

A politician argues: “We must implement my economic plan. If we don’t, our nation will fall into a terrible depression and millions will suffer.” This statement primarily represents:

A politician argues: “We must implement my economic plan. If we don’t, our nation will fall into a terrible depression and millions will suffer.” This statement primarily represents:

People should not wear fur coats because it’s the wrong thing to do. Football is fun to watch because it’s such an enjoyable game.

Question at position 38 red herringstrawmanad hominemhasty generalizationjumping into conclusions

Question at position 23 ad hominemstrawmanhasty generalizationred herringappeal to emotion

Which of the following best identifies a misuse of evidence or logic in the passage?

Question at position 16 appeal to emotionstrawmanad hominemred herringhasty generalization

Son: Wow, Dad, it's really hard to make a living on my salary. Father: Consider yourself lucky, son. Why? When I was your age, I only made $40 a week. The above is a good example of _______________ fallacy.

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler