Q9 - Technological improvements will enable

[megm7267]

My first question: What is the difference between and implication and an inference?

Doesn't this question imply that population ill increase? What is the best way to tackle an inference question?

Thanks

[bbirdwell]

I use implication and inference interchangeably.

For inference questions, identify the facts presented in the argument. Choose an answer that you can either outright prove, or one that is only baby steps away from being totally provable. Do not put facts together and attempt to make an innovative, creative leap to something new and broad and amazing.

Correct answers, as a general rule, tend to sound more conservative (sometimes, can, possibly), and incorrect answers tend to sound more extreme (all, always, never).

In this example, here's what we know:

1. tech will enable food to increase as pop increases
2. this food increase will be negligible unless societies become more centralized
3. the more centralized a society, the greater the % of people perish when it collapses
4. increasing centralization in order to increase food will exacerbate disasters associated with collapse

(A) this is opposite of what is stated in 2. above.

(B) Definitely. Note the language right off the bat "not every." Can we prove that not every problem will be fixed with tech? Yeah! In fact, the problem mentioned will be caused by tech! (tech --> food --> centralized --> big % perishing)

(C) Note the language (will, indefinitely) -- suspiciously extreme. Also note that while the argument does seem to imply that the population itself will grow, it does not say that the RATE of population growth will increase. That's why this answer is incorrect.

(D) is unsupported. We know that tech can help, we don't know that it's the only way to help.

(E) is unsupported.

Does that help?

[megm7267]

Yep, thank you!

[cinderellarose14]

I think the big problem for me with answer choice B is that it is actually not that related to our central argument. Now I look back I realize this is the only answer we can ever choose cause the other ones are clearly eliminated, however when I was doing this question I actually eliminated B because I thought it out of scope...and left the question blank to finish when I have extra time.

[jyup1982]

I understand why (B) can be inferred from the article. But why not (E)? I guess the logic can be summarized as follow;
tech - food inc. - centralized - perish
then (E) says tech- centralized

Am I missing something here? I would appreciate your help.

[jionggangtu]

My tutor told me that when you use imply, it is for the author to imply something, and when you inference, it is people who read to inference from what the author says.

who is the subject is the difference in using these two words.

hope that helps.

[ban2110]

Is it incorrect that I approached this as a "strengthen" question and not an inference? I eventually chose correctly, but the question confused me and ate a bit of time because I had to use POE. Would it be easier to answer questions with this type of stem "most strongly support" if I thought of them as inference questions?

[acechaowang]

E is wrong because the second sentence states that increase not negligible--> society more centralized. Since we don't know whether the tech improvement will be negligible or not, we can 't infer E.

[hyewonkim89]

I use implication and inference interchangeably.

For inference questions, identify the facts presented in the argument. Choose an answer that you can either outright prove, or one that is only baby steps away from being totally provable. Do not put facts together and attempt to make an innovative, creative leap to something new and broad and amazing.

Correct answers, as a general rule, tend to sound more conservative (sometimes, can, possibly), and incorrect answers tend to sound more extreme (all, always, never).

In this example, here's what we know:

1. tech will enable food to increase as pop increases
2. this food increase will be negligible unless societies become more centralized
3. the more centralized a society, the greater the % of people perish when it collapses
4. increasing centralization in order to increase food will exacerbate disasters associated with collapse

(A) this is opposite of what is stated in 2. above.

(B) Definitely. Note the language right off the bat "not every." Can we prove that not every problem will be fixed with tech? Yeah! In fact, the problem mentioned will be caused by tech! (tech --> food --> centralized --> big % perishing)

(C) Note the language (will, indefinitely) -- suspiciously extreme. Also note that while the argument does seem to imply that the population itself will grow, it does not say that the RATE of population growth will increase. That's why this answer is incorrect.

(D) is unsupported. We know that tech can help, we don't know that it's the only way to help.

(E) is unsupported.

Does that help?

How is E unsupported?

From what you explained for B, (tech --> food --> centralized --> big % perishing) this seems like you are saying societies have become more centralized as technology has improved. Is E wrong because it doesn't say 'some' societies?

This questions was really confusing to me.

[sumukh09]

E says societies HAVE become more centralized but we no proof of this in the argument. The conditional chain implies that the sufficient condition must be met in order for the necessary condition to be met, but we have no indication in the stimulus that the sufficient condition ie) tech improving, has been met. And even if we did, the answer choice says "societies" in general which is too broad to be proven by the stimulus.

[cyt5015]

If answer E is changed to "Societies will become more centralized when technology improves", will it be a good answer for this inference question? Thanks.

I noticed that there is a slight degree shift in premise from "increase" to "non-negligible increase". Is it still OK to combine the chains "tech improvement->food production increase" and "food production increase non-negligible->more centralized" or the two need to be separated?

Thank you!

[christine.defenbaugh]

There's a lot of awesome discussion going on here as to why (E) is incorrect!

cyt5015 in particular, has really cut to the meat of it with his post:

If answer E is changed to "Societies will become more centralized when technology improves", will it be a good answer for this inference question? Thanks.

I noticed that there is a slight degree shift in premise from "increase" to "non-negligible increase". Is it still OK to combine the chains "tech improvement->food production increase" and "food production increase non-negligible->more centralized" or the two need to be separated?

Thank you!

You have perfectly zeroed in on two of the distinct elements that make (E) definitively wrong.

1) Verb tense:
Props to sumukh09 for noticing this as well!
The first two sentences connect tech, food production, and centralization, but only in future tense language. Even if the connections were perfect, the only things we could potentially infer from those relationships would also be future tense, i.e., what will or would happen. Since (E) attempts to infer some past factual event from these statements, it cannot be correct.

2) Term shift from "increase" to "non-negligible increase" (re: food production):
The first sentence connects tech with food production increases - any increases could fit the bill! The second sentence gives the relationship:
If non-negligible food production increases, then society more centralized.
It's possible that tech would produce a negligible increase in food production. If that were the case, we might still be in a less-centralized society, even with technology improvements.

There's a third, additional reason why (E) is wrong. Notice that the first sentence is not as clear a conditional statement as we might think. It does not absolutely guarantee that food production will increase when tech improves. It merely says that tech improvements make such increases possible.

For instance, it's possible that tech improvements make food production increases possible, but the people who control it are evil tyrants who want everyone to starve. Yes, the tech has made it possible, but the tyrants could prevent the utilization.

The second and third reasons, changing the verb tense alone would not be enough to make (E) a valid inference. These are also the reasons that the first relationship (tech - food production increase) should not be tacked on to the conditional chain of the second and third sentences, but rather thought of as a separate fact (that is not really a conditional at all).



I hope this helps clear up the questions surrounding this sticky answer choice!

[T.J.]

I'm really concerned about answer choice A, so I would like to offer my reason for its elimination and you guys can enlighten me on this.
I crossed it out because of the second part of that sentence "the greater its need for increased food production". After checking with the stimulus, I could not find "the need for production" anywhere. Besides, what follows "more centralized society" is "greater percentage of people perishing if the society collapse".
I eliminated A for these two reasons. Am I on the right track here?

[christine.defenbaugh]

I'm really concerned about answer choice A, so I would like to offer my reason for its elimination and you guys can enlighten me on this.
I crossed it out because of the second part of that sentence "the greater its need for increased food production". After checking with the stimulus, I could not find "the need for production" anywhere. Besides, what follows "more centralized society" is "greater percentage of people perishing if the society collapse".
I eliminated A for these two reasons. Am I on the right track here?

Spot on T.J.! The stimulus never refers to anything about the "need for increased food production", much less anything that would trigger a "greater need" for it. No support for that in the stimulus at all!

Great elimination work!