Passage Summary: An opponent says we shouldn't drill for oil because the new wells only add a tiny bit of oil compared to what we need. A proponent mocks this by saying that's like banning a new farm just because one farm can't feed the whole country.

Conclusion: The opponent's argument against drilling is invalid because it relies on a logic that would lead to absurd conclusions in other contexts.

Reasoning: The proponent compares the opponent's logic to the idea of banning new farms simply because a single farm cannot meet a nation's entire food demand.

Analysis: This is a classic 'Method of Reasoning' question where the proponent employs an analogy to discredit the opponent. By taking the opponent's underlying principle—that a small contribution is not worth the effort—and applying it to a clearly beneficial activity like farming, the proponent attempts a 'reductio ad absurdum.' To identify the correct answer, look for a description of how the proponent uses a parallel case to show that the opponent's reasoning leads to an unacceptable conclusion. We are strictly looking at the structure of the rebuttal here, not whether the proponent is actually right.