huanghai.whu
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 1
Joined: April 15th, 2014
 
 
 

Q11 - North American Prairie

by huanghai.whu Tue Apr 15, 2014 2:06 pm

Why not B?

I know there are four premises:
1. Cattle feed --> destroy North America prairie;
2. the prairie once supported 30-70M Bison, now supports about 50M cattle (what's the purpose of this premise? doesn't this mean that returning the land to bisons will be more cost efficiently than raising cattle?)
3. Bison yield as much meat as cattle;
4. natural prairie: no requirement for pesticides, machinery, and etc.

Conclusion: if we return as much land as possible to an uncultivated state, we could restore biodiversity without a major decrease in meat production.

I know E is good, but I thought it is just a reiterate of the main conclusion in the stimulus. So I chose B.

Thanks in advance for your help!
User avatar
 
maryadkins
Thanks Received: 641
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: March 23rd, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - North American Prairie

by maryadkins Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:58 pm

huanghai.whu Wrote:I know E is good, but I thought it is just a reiterate of the main conclusion in the stimulus. So I chose B.


Bingo! That is your IDEAL answer to a main point question. Find an answer that comes as close to restating the conclusion as possible.

(B) is too broad. The author of this argument never makes such sweeping statements.

And yes, the statement that the land once supported about as much bison as it does cattle now is a way of saying, we wouldn't lose meat production.

(A) isn't what is argued. Meat production might not decrease at all.

(C) is out of scope, as is (D).
 
Youngstar2028
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 6
Joined: October 03rd, 2016
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - North American Prairie

by Youngstar2028 Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:41 am

Okay here we go
Answer choice B says protecting the habitat of Bisons so that we can use them as food is more cost effective than raising domesticated animals. Answer choice B would force you to make an unwarranted assumption. You will have to assume that because this natural habitat does not require neither pesticide, machinery, nor government subsidies then there is no other requirement that would cost much money that is saved from artificial habitat. For example what if once land is returned to an uncultivated state Bison eating animals begins to threaten Bisons, then the government or whoever may be spending a lot of money protecting the habitat. The return to natural habitat may not be cost effective after all.

Let me know what you think.
 
YufeiR103
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 13
Joined: November 01st, 2022
 
 
 

Re: Q11 - North American Prairie

by YufeiR103 Thu Dec 15, 2022 2:44 pm

I think you totally get it, that E is just a reiteration of the main conclusion, and the question exactly is asking for the main conclusion. As for B, I also didn't exclude it at the first time. However, if we rethink the idea of B, we can find the B has a purpose of "cost-effective", however, the passage is taking about restore "biodiversity / the complex ecosystem", and no major cost of meat production. The passage mentions the cost, but the ecosystem is the main point.