44 LR One Question 13
- « 44 LR One Question 12
- 904 of 3815
- 44 LR One Question 14 »
Comments
Question 1. How did you decide on the symbol NOT G for first part of the first sentence? I get that it symbolizes "The solution to any enviro problem that is not the result of gov't mismanagement"
What I don't understand is the process for why/how you pick out your variables sometimes.
I focused on SOLUTION in the first sentence because the CONC says "few serious ecological problems will be SOLVED unless..."
As a result, I wrote my chain:
(few) serious enviro problems solved --> Solution (that is not the result of gov't mismanagement) --> MJ changes --> Economically Enticing.
My chain is technically the same as yours in terms of content except for the solution/solved business (I think!?). I picked E, because I had 'solved' at the end of the first variable. I went into the answer choices looking for something that started with "(few) serious enviro problems solved".
Question 2: How do we know 'Few serious ecological problems' ARE THE RESULT of "gov't mismanagement" (which is in the correct ANS choice A)? Does the phrase "are the result' indicate 'gov't mismanagement" is the necessary condition - is that how we know?
1. Because the argument is concerned with what kind of problem will be addressed by the solution. It's like saying The best clothes for any man are the ones made by Jerry Armani (Giorgio's lesser-known yet talented cousin). We'd focus here on the men—they're the ones we're dressing (in beautiful Jerry Armani, no less!).
2. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this question. (A) is not necessary to the argument. However, if (A) is true, then most of the serious problems aren't caused by the government, which means their solutions will require consumer changes which means they have to be economically enticing. In other words, it completes the chain.
I chose E, but I think I did so because I neglected to consider the government mismanagement piece.
This is my symbolization chain (for problems that do not involve government mismanagement):
Economically enticing solutions -> Changes in behaviour -> Solved Problems
Since the argument concludes by saying that few problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing, then I know for sure that there was no government mismanagement and that I can use this chain. Ie. There is no new element in my symbolization chain.
Does that make sense? Or, should I be thinking about it in a different way? Thanks
I'm concerned about this sentence: "Since the argument concludes by saying that few problems will be solved unless the solutions are made economically enticing, then I know for sure..."
The fact that an argument concludes that something is true does not tell us anything at all for sure. The whole problem with all these arguments is that their conclusions make claims that aren't fully supported by the evidence.
Also, remember that the necessary conditions always go on the right. We don't know that changes will always bring about solutions; we know only that solutions will require changes (exactly the same as how being in NYC doesn't always mean you're in Manhattan, but being in Manhattan requires being in NYC. Thus, M → NYC is correct, but NYC → M is incorrect).
Ah, I get it now. My conditionals were backwards, I did not include the government mismanagement part, and I forgot to include the serious problem part of the conclusion. Thanks again Dave.