Q12 - Extinction is inevitable for all

[tzyc]

I think the original stimulus basically says since X occurs after all, there is no need to do Y.
I chose (D) between (B) and (D)...
Is (D) wrong because it does not include the idea of "protectective"? Did I make the stimulus too simple to think?

Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I think your abstract model might be a little too vague, making it hard for you to clearly see the distinction between (B) and (D).

You were looking for, "since X will inevitably occur, there's no need to do Y."

That's definitely correct, but we could be a little more precise by thinking about how X and Y relate to each other.

Otherwise, we'd be tempted by an argument such as this:
Since every prime-time sitcom will eventually go off the air, there is no justification for ordering pizza tonight.

This argument fits your X/Y sentence, but it's not a great match for the original.

So, again, how do X and Y relate to each other in the beginning?

X: extinction will eventually occur
Y: save them from extinction now

It's important to this argument that X and Y have something to do with each other.

We might want to rephrase the original abstract model as:
"Since X will eventually have Y happen to it, there's no point in trying to prevent Y from happening to X now."

I certainly wouldn't want my doctor to use this logic on me! "Well, sir, since you're going to die eventually, there's no point in trying to cure you of this current illness."

So, as you suggested, (B) is better because it relates to the idea of protecting/preserving something for as long as you can, even though you know you can't protect/preserve it forever.

In terms of (D), be careful with the strength of language. It doesn't really match your original model of "since X occurs after all ..."

In the original, extinction is "inevitable". In (D), a traffic jam "can occur". Saying something is certain to occur vs. saying something could possibly occur is a big difference in terms of strength of language.

Hope this helps.