I'm struggling with believing it's ok to make some assumptions on the past two questions. For this one "change" -- change in previous sections has always been pointed out as vague
Please let me know if this helps as it is my first comment.
What helped me was simplifying the columnist's argument- similar to the early lessons on grammar.
1) Although much has been learned, we are still mostly ignorant. -Great this does not tell me anything about what we know or don't know.
2) Because much has been learned and we are still ignorant we should therefore try to preserve the maximum number of species if we have an interest in preserving any of them.
3) We should preserve them since allowing species to perish might be harmful/result in fewer of other species that we may or may not care about.
Answers
D) We should not allow a change (allowing species to perish) unless we are assured that will not jeopardize anything important to us (species we may or may not care about/the viability of other species). Yes this fits pretty well and most helps to justify. Why? we don't allow the species that we are indifferent to perish unless we are assured that this will not jeopardize other species which its assumed that we care about - this assumption is small and fits with the "most"
A) what does this tell us about the argument? Our main goal if anything is to preserve as many as possible, not certain ones.
B) We do not know anything about the relevant scientific facts or taking them into account (especially all of them). And we want to take action if we care about preserving any species.
C) We want the maximum number to be preserved- this answer may or may not go against that since maximum does not mean all. But how much have they already diminished? When did the argument say it was about flourishing present and or future human populations? How does that even relate?
E) Will preserving the maximum number of species (the proposed course of action here) result in the best consequences in the immediate future? we just don't know. It also helps to think that we are assuming preserving will have the best consequences in the immediate future- we don't know what impact it will have in the immediate future because the columnist does not tell us.
If you picked E over D it may be because you assumed that preserving the maximum number of species is likely to have the best consequences in the immediate future- but what if it doesn't? what if preserving the maximum number of species had downsides and resulted in not the best consequences in the immediate future- Long term it may be best, short term maybe... we don't really know what will happen if we were to try and preserve the maximum number of species tomorrow or next week.
I also eliminated answer choice a because it says "certain" plant and animal species because we don't know what certain species are. We basically don't want to let any species diminish
Okay, so what confused me about this question is that the conclusion contains a conditional statement. I'm used to seeing: "If X, then do Y. Therefore, we should do Y." and then I look for the answer choice that triggers the sufficient condition (the "if X"). However, this question is saying: Allowing a species we don't care about to go extinct might cause a species we do care about to go extinct as well, so [if we have an interest in preserving at least one species, we should try to preserve the maximum number of species.] Everything in brackets is the conclusion.
I typically don't like "kicking things up" to the domain, but I do think it's a useful strategy for this question. So I kick the conditional part of the conclusion (in bold) up into the domain and now, I imagine myself in a world where I have an interest in preserving at least one species. I also know that allowing a species I don't care about to go extinct (e.g. dogs) might cause a species I do care about to go extinct as well (e.g. cats). I conclude that I should try to preserve the maximum number of species. But why the maximum number of species? Why not just preserve the subset of species whose disappearance would affect the species I care about? (i.e. save dogs so I can save cats). I am looking for the answer choice with a rule/principle that justifies this 'maximum preservation' strategy.
A) this tells me something the author has already asked me to presume to be true. It would be the correct answer had the conclusion not been formulated as a conditional
B) I'm looking for a rule that tells me to take an action, not one that tells me not to take action.
C) I'm looking for a rule that tells me to try to not let any species go extinct, not a rule that says some extinctions are okay.
D) Correct! This is saying that unless I'm 100% sure that a change (a species going extinct) will not jeapordize anything important to me (a species I care about), then I should not allow that change (extinction) to occur. In that case, because any extinction might have repercussions on a species I care about (I just don't know), then I should try to prevent all extinctions (which is equivalent to preserving a maximum number of species).
E) The first part fits the rule I'm looking for because it tells us when we should undertake an action, but it doesn't lead to the right place. Who says that preserving a species I have an interest in will lead to "the best consequences in the immediate future"?
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Sorry, you need a subscription for that.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
169 comments
30 SECONDS UNDER I'm hype
Listening to the video while working out, bad idea righttr
Nope. Just nope.
got it in BR but i had trouble whittling these ACs down
Can someone explain why D is the correct AC. ChatGPT isn't helping out girl
P: ignorant of interrelationships
P: Shouldn't let indifferent species die
C: We should try to preserve Max # of species
When I got stuck, I ONLY thought of what bridged the gap between the P+C
I got it right but in 5 mins and 39 secs :(
@JR2003 I got it right first try, took me 8 minutes lol.
i thought if it was broad and does not really identify the specific situation it is not correct?
I got it right in the BR... that counts right... :')
@jrm98 a win is a win
Damn! I am on fire! I don't know what it is, but I have been getting the last few questions in this unit right!
what a cunt of a question
what the fck is this question - feels like a sick joke
What's the name of the software that you use to draw on the screen of the question? Also can we use it on test day?
I think it would really help.
@CodyLevant I don't think you can use any additional software like that on test day
Can live with that I got this wrong lol
what. the. fuck.
@ctrue22 Real
I'm struggling with believing it's ok to make some assumptions on the past two questions. For this one "change" -- change in previous sections has always been pointed out as vague
@meepmeep Exactly!!
To better understand the correct answer choice, rewrite in contrapositive
Got it right but at what cost (it took me eleven minutes)
@emmalemon too real
Please let me know if this helps as it is my first comment.
What helped me was simplifying the columnist's argument- similar to the early lessons on grammar.
1) Although much has been learned, we are still mostly ignorant. -Great this does not tell me anything about what we know or don't know.
2) Because much has been learned and we are still ignorant we should therefore try to preserve the maximum number of species if we have an interest in preserving any of them.
3) We should preserve them since allowing species to perish might be harmful/result in fewer of other species that we may or may not care about.
Answers
D) We should not allow a change (allowing species to perish) unless we are assured that will not jeopardize anything important to us (species we may or may not care about/the viability of other species). Yes this fits pretty well and most helps to justify. Why? we don't allow the species that we are indifferent to perish unless we are assured that this will not jeopardize other species which its assumed that we care about - this assumption is small and fits with the "most"
A) what does this tell us about the argument? Our main goal if anything is to preserve as many as possible, not certain ones.
B) We do not know anything about the relevant scientific facts or taking them into account (especially all of them). And we want to take action if we care about preserving any species.
C) We want the maximum number to be preserved- this answer may or may not go against that since maximum does not mean all. But how much have they already diminished? When did the argument say it was about flourishing present and or future human populations? How does that even relate?
E) Will preserving the maximum number of species (the proposed course of action here) result in the best consequences in the immediate future? we just don't know. It also helps to think that we are assuming preserving will have the best consequences in the immediate future- we don't know what impact it will have in the immediate future because the columnist does not tell us.
If you picked E over D it may be because you assumed that preserving the maximum number of species is likely to have the best consequences in the immediate future- but what if it doesn't? what if preserving the maximum number of species had downsides and resulted in not the best consequences in the immediate future- Long term it may be best, short term maybe... we don't really know what will happen if we were to try and preserve the maximum number of species tomorrow or next week.
I feel like there may need to be more instruction on how to deal with creating / understanding abstract rules.
Can anyone help explain how D is correct? I don't understand why the "change to occur" statement relates to the stimulus
@SoniaKulkarni the 'change to occur' is not preserving certain species, i.e them going extinct.
"Viability" in the Stimulus lead me to switching to D word on the basis of the word "jeopardize" in the correct answer.
I also eliminated answer choice a because it says "certain" plant and animal species because we don't know what certain species are. We basically don't want to let any species diminish
my head hurts so much
Okay, so what confused me about this question is that the conclusion contains a conditional statement. I'm used to seeing: "If X, then do Y. Therefore, we should do Y." and then I look for the answer choice that triggers the sufficient condition (the "if X"). However, this question is saying: Allowing a species we don't care about to go extinct might cause a species we do care about to go extinct as well, so [if we have an interest in preserving at least one species, we should try to preserve the maximum number of species.] Everything in brackets is the conclusion.
I typically don't like "kicking things up" to the domain, but I do think it's a useful strategy for this question. So I kick the conditional part of the conclusion (in bold) up into the domain and now, I imagine myself in a world where I have an interest in preserving at least one species. I also know that allowing a species I don't care about to go extinct (e.g. dogs) might cause a species I do care about to go extinct as well (e.g. cats). I conclude that I should try to preserve the maximum number of species. But why the maximum number of species? Why not just preserve the subset of species whose disappearance would affect the species I care about? (i.e. save dogs so I can save cats). I am looking for the answer choice with a rule/principle that justifies this 'maximum preservation' strategy.
A) this tells me something the author has already asked me to presume to be true. It would be the correct answer had the conclusion not been formulated as a conditional
B) I'm looking for a rule that tells me to take an action, not one that tells me not to take action.
C) I'm looking for a rule that tells me to try to not let any species go extinct, not a rule that says some extinctions are okay.
D) Correct! This is saying that unless I'm 100% sure that a change (a species going extinct) will not jeapordize anything important to me (a species I care about), then I should not allow that change (extinction) to occur. In that case, because any extinction might have repercussions on a species I care about (I just don't know), then I should try to prevent all extinctions (which is equivalent to preserving a maximum number of species).
E) The first part fits the rule I'm looking for because it tells us when we should undertake an action, but it doesn't lead to the right place. Who says that preserving a species I have an interest in will lead to "the best consequences in the immediate future"?