Question

As a citizen of Belvedere, I feel it's my duty to raise my voice in protest against the proposed shopping mall on Elmhurst Avenue, for several reasons. This mall will be built dangerously close to Gordon's Creek, and the state environmental bureau says the construction and increased traffic will likely pollute and destroy our precious landmark within a few years. And let's talk about traffic — do you like the air quality here in Belvedere? Because you won't after the mall is built. A federal impact study says the increased traffic will lower our air quality by 25 percent in the next ten years. Lastly, everyone talks about all the jobs that will be created when the mall arrives, but it's a fact that nobody will take any job that has the potential to harm the environment. What we're going to end up with is a dying creek, lots of traffic, and a huge mall with nobody willing to work in it. Let's just stop this before it starts.

How does the author's faulty evidence about jobs affect his or her credibility? Why?

a) It strengthens the credibility by emphasizing environmental concerns.
b) It does not impact credibility as it focuses on multiple issues.
c) It weakens credibility by presenting unreliable information on job creation.
d) It enhances credibility by prioritizing the preservation of Gordon's Creek.

Answer 1

The author's argument weakens their own credibility by presenting an unrealistic statement about job refusal due to environmental impact, which lacks reliability and does not account for the complexity of employment decisions.

Step-by-step explanation:

The author's assertion that "nobody will take any job that has the potential to harm the environment" appears to be an overgeneralization, and this overstatement weakens the credibility of the argument against constructing a new shopping mall near Gordon's Creek in Belvedere. While environmental concerns are undoubtedly crucial, it is unrealistic to assume that every potential employee would prioritize these concerns over job opportunities, especially in diverse economic conditions.

People's decisions regarding employment are complex and multifaceted, often influenced by factors such as financial needs, career aspirations, and immediate economic circumstances. In many cases, individuals may face limited job options or may prioritize securing employment to meet basic needs, even if the job is associated with potential environmental harm. Economic considerations, especially in regions with high unemployment rates or limited job opportunities, can significantly impact individuals' choices.

By making an absolute statement about job refusal based on environmental concerns, the author oversimplifies the intricate dynamics of employment decisions. While environmental consciousness is growing, people's choices are nuanced and context-dependent. This overstatement weakens the overall argument against the construction of the shopping mall by failing to acknowledge the complexities involved in individual decision-making related to employment.

In conclusion, while environmental considerations are important, the unrealistic claim about universal job refusal due to potential environmental harm diminishes the strength of the argument against the construction of the shopping mall near Gordon's Creek. Recognizing the multifaceted nature of employment decisions would enhance the credibility and persuasiveness of the author's stance on the environmental impact of the proposed development.