Q11 - Spreading iron particles over

[tommywallach]

Hey Mehreena,

Let's do it!

Passage: I.P. --> up phytos --> down CO2 and less greenhouse
Side effects haven't been studied
We shouldn't I.P. right now

The takeaway is that you shouldn't do something that you know has good consequences if you don't know what it's bad consequences might be. (We can see that before we look at the answers.)

(A) The passage never said something should be done, only not done.

(B) CORRECT. This is saying we shouldn't do something if we don't know what the bad effects might be.

(C) We don't know if this would be the case (consequences worse than original problem) because we don't know what the consequences are yet!

(D) This is tricky, but the passage doesn't say we shouldn't alter a resource (the resource here being an ocean), only that we shouldn't do it if we don't know what the consequences might be.

(E) This is the trickiest answer. But the passage doesn't say the solution might exacerbate the original problem, only that it might cause other problems.


#officialexplanation

Hope that helps!

-t

[geverett]

B vs E . . . Go!

[gilad.bendheim]

(E) is tricky, but should be among the first to be eliminated, for two reasons. (1) We have no information about a problem being exacerbated anywhere in the stimulas. But more importantly (2) the answer says 'we shouldn't do something to correct a problem that would make the problem itself worse.' In the stimulas, the problem is the greenhouse affect. But the problem being dealt with in answer choice is DIFFERENT -- it is some harm coming to the ocean. What this harm may be we do not know, but there is no reason to think that it has anything to do with greenhouse gasses. Maybe the harm is that tuna fish would taste worse...

Love your posts by the way - always super helpful.
Thanks

[maryadkins]

Great response! Let me know if you still need clarification!

[syousif3]

Hello is A wrong because it reversed the logic?

[boy5237]

I thought B was not an attractive choice because of the word "alter."
there is no indication in argument that the green house effect could alter the source, which is the ocean.

Help???

[jimmy902o]

How is B a better choice than A? B says the strategy would be "impermissible (forever?)" which carries much stronger weight than "should not be implemented immediately"

[timmydoeslsat]

There is no argument from me that we could have worded B to be a better answer choice. However, B is the only answer choice that is close.

We know that the consequences of this iron campaign to the oceans are unknown. This is the reason why the author tells us to not undertake this campaign right now.

A) Know consequences ---> Do it

This is logically backwards of what we want. We want a situation that tells us what to do when we ~Know consequences.

[al2568]

Just for fun....

If this were a strengthen question, wouldn't E and B both work?

[tommywallach]

Hey Al,

Believe it or not, i would still say no, basically for the reasons already cited. Knowing that we shouldn't do something that may exacerbate a problem isn't relevant here, because the iron filing strategy would decidedly NOT exacerbate the issue of the greenhouse effect (we know that it would HELP that issue). So "exacerbation" is an irrelevant issue.

Make sense?

-t

[mehreena379]

Can someone please work through the stimulus and questions stem for this one? I chose A are the answer because I thought 'impermissible' was too strong when the question stem said 'should not be implemented immediately.' And I though there was a difference in word choice between 'not yet to be studied' and 'no adequately understood.' Thanks!

[Mab6q]

In my opinion, E can easily be eliminated because it says nothing about study. The stimulus talks about not implementing this response not because there is a chance that it may exacerbate the problem but simply because it has not been STUDIED. Not studied --> dont implement.

[ellylb]

Okay let's get through this.

A) is incorrect because it is a CLASSIC mistaken negation. The stimulus concludes that since we don't know, we should not act

don't know -> don't act

Answer choice A negates this to say if we know -> act (mistaken negation).

B) is the correct answer. This is a general principle that if applied, warrants the conclusion in the stimulus. The stimulus suggests a problem-solving strategy (spreading iron particles over the surface of the ocean to counteract the greenhouse effect) but claims that it has yet to understand the consequences (side of effects of said strategy have yet to be studied) then concluding that the strategy should not yet be employed. This is completely summarised in B

C Exaggeration... we don't know if the consequences will be MORE serious. We just don't yet know what the consequences are. This is too strong.

D This is a conditional statement that exclaims: if strategy alters important resource -> should not act
This isn't quite the conclusion of the stimulus, which is about the consequences of the the alteration, not the alteration itself. In theory, alteration could be possible if we did understand the consequences. Therefore this principle is not broad enough in nature - too narrow.

E This is similar to C in that it goes beyond the facts of the stimulus. Nowhere in the stimulus is there indication that the suggested strategy would exacerbate "that problem"... perhaps the feared unknown consequences are NEW problems that would occur as a result and have nothing to do with exacerbating current ones.

Hope this helps!

[AlexY297]

Is this a Principle question ? I was in between B and D and I thought that in B impermissible may have been too strong in tone? Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, it's a Principle question.

Principle questions come in many flavors: they can resemble Strengthen, Weaken, Inference, Matching, Necessary Assumption

The most typical type of Principle question is the kind that basically reads like Strengthen (although it normally acts like Sufficient Assumption)
which of the following principles, if valid, most justifies the argument

This type of Principle question is like Necessary Assumption, because it's asking which answer choice conforms to the reasoning. Necessary Assumptions conform to the author's reasoning.

So you were wise to be nervous of strong wording. It's possible for a principle here to help but be written so strongly that it doesn't conform to the author's reasoning.

But when we see strong language on Necessary Assumption, we just check to see whether the conclusion is certain of itself. If so, then it's fair for us to say that the author made a certain/definitive assumption.

Here, the author's conclusion is "this response SHOULD NOT be implemented immediately". It may sound like a weak claim since the author does not have a certain feeling about whether we should implement this response later, but the author is 100% sure we should not implement it now.

That's why we're okay with (B)'s strength of language. Right now, the consequences are not adequately understood, so right now it is impermissible to implement this strategy.

Hope this helps.