The following debate between MICHELLE and YUSEF corresponds to Items #6-10. Both sides demonstrate faulty thinking. In each Item, select the best reason why the thinking is faulty. You need not know anything about the arguments for or against alternative energy to answer these items.

Please answer this question.

MICHELLE: Overwhelming scientific consensus says human activity is the primary cause of global climate change. For this reason, we must explore alternative energy sources.

YUSEF: That is not necessarily true. A recent survey found that almost half of climatologists challenge the idea that humans are primarily responsible for climate change, and instead believe climate change is caused by an equal combination of humans and the environment.

Why is Michelle's thinking faulty?

Michelle mistakenly assumes there are only two alternatives.

Michelle uses emotional language that makes the position unreasonable.

Michelle does not provide enough evidence to support the conclusion.

Please answer this question.

MICHELLE: Let us never forget, everything that is required to make America's economy cleaner, greener, and more resilient is a career pathway for someone. In addition to their environmental benefits, therefore, alternative energy sources promise to be job-creators as well.

YUSEF: Although job creation is always welcome, such a wild conclusion ignores the fact that opening a job in green industry would eliminate one in the fossil fuel industry. Job creation, in this case, also means job loss.

Why is Michelle's thinking faulty?

Michelle does not provide enough evidence to support the conclusion.

Michelle uses emotional language that makes the position unreasonable.

Michelle uses words that are ambiguous or have multiple meanings.

Please answer this question.

MICHELLE: How can you challenge the science on climate change or underestimate its devastating effect on our planet? To do so is to engage in climate change denial.

YUSEF: By characterizing me as a climate change denier, you are unfairly stigmatizing my position on the matter.

Why is Michelle's thinking faulty?

Michelle uses words that are ambiguous or have multiple meanings.

Michelle uses emotional language that makes the position unreasonable.

Michelle suppresses evidence that contradicts the conclusion.

Please answer this question.

YUSEF: Despite the push toward alternatives like corn-based ethanol, there is currently no liquid fuel that can entirely replace oil for meeting our transportation needs. We are stuck relying on fossil fuels because of the scale of the industry, and, despite shortcomings, oil's efficiency.

MICHELLE: Even if you are correct that alternative energy sources cannot entirely supplant our use of fossil fuels for transportation, surely the diversification of energy sources would reduce our dependence on oil.

Why is Yusef's thinking faulty?

Yusef mistakenly assumes there are only two alternatives.

Yusef suppresses evidence that contradicts the conclusion. Yusef does not provide enough evidence to support the conclusion. Please answer this question.

YUSEF: It is estimated that there is enough oil and natural gas offshore, as well as in non-wilderness and non-park lands in the United States, to fuel 50 million cars and heat nearly 100 million homes for the next 25 years. If we were to expand the areas available for active exploration, we could potentially reduce energy prices for consumers.

MICHELLE: What you fail to disclose is that lifting the ban on offshore drilling and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge won't make any significant difference in what we pay at the pump, according to the Energy Department.

Why is Yusef's thinking is faulty?

Yusef suppresses evidence that contradicts the conclusion. Yusef mistakenly assumes there are only two alternatives. Yusef uses words that are ambiguous or have multiple meanings.