Time left 3:0 Pick all that apply: [Rex Murphy, in 'Selling Something, Dr Suzuki?', Globe and Mail (28 Sept. 2002). Mr Murphy is responding to remarks made by David Suzuki at a press conference hosted by Canadian doctors advocating the ratification of the Kyoto Accord. Among the claims advanced was that 16,000 Canadian deaths are caused each year by global warming.] That 16,000 Canadians die every year is a very particular claim. It must be scientific. And if it is a piece of proven science that 16,000 of us die every year because of global warming, then only those people who don't care about the deaths of a horrifying number of fellow citizens would oppose ratifying Kyoto. I don't buy the 'science' of the press conference for a minute. These are 'advocacy' numbers. They have as much science, in the strict sense, as that phrase 'more dentists recommend...' that used to pop up so unpersuasively in toothpaste commercials. The point of advocacy numbers is to pump a cause, not make a finding. Advocacy numbers are the rhetoric of an age that can't write perorations; they are argumentative quickies, meant to sidestep the preliminaries, finesse the intermediate niceties, and get the meeting over with. a. This is not an argument b. This is an explanation c. This argument uses the word 'science' vaguely d. This argument is cogent. e. This argument is not cogent.