73 LR Two Question 26
- « 73 LR Two Question 25
- 2737 of 3815
- 73 RC Passage 1 »
Comments
Hi Dave,
Can you explain the issue with B on this question? A explains that less harm will be done, but it doesn't explain that the wildlife would actually recover, which is what I had in mind while skimming the choices. Thanks
Consider this analogue:
Drug A causes warts. But we don't need Drug A if we just drink lots of milk, so we should start drinking more milk.
Same argument. Here, do we need to know that taking smaller amounts of Drug A would cause fewer warts? Of course not; it's irrelevant. We'll be drinking milk.
Same thing here!
I still don't get it.
In the video you used an anlaogy about using alcohol instead of other drugs, and said nothing said alcohol (or genetically modified crops) is better than the alternative of drugs (or insecticides). That clearly says A.
However, B seems reasonable as well. The farmer's argument is that more GMO's will help damaged wildlife recover. We are looking for a necessary assumption. B assumes those harmed would likely recover if insecticides decreases. The farmer said GMOs do not need to be sprayed. Reduced spraying + assumption B = likely recovery. What's wrong with my thinking here?
The question isn't whether (B) is helpful—it is!—the question is whether it's necessary.
This farmer argues that a wide reduction in insecticides will be helpful. To sustain that claim, we do not need to assert that even a slight reduction would help (in the same way that claiming that having lots of money means you're rich does not require asserting that having even slight amounts of money makes you rich).
Hi! I was confused between A and E but eventually went with E. Could you explain why E is wrong and how they are different? Thank you.
(E) is sort of backwards: it presents us with a conditional claim in which the argument's conclusion is the sufficient condition.
In other words, if an argument says "Thing X, therefore Thing Z", then we do need to know that thing X leads in some way to thing Z. We do not need to know that thing Z leads to thing X.
That backwardness is one essential error in (E) here.
Make sense?