PT10.S1.Q07 - slash and burn

nathanieljschwartz

Why wouldnt A be considered an attack on the premise that says that land becomes too poor to support agriculture?

stepharizona

This is a great example to use the negation technique. The argument concludes that due to the described methods and impact of slash and burn Forrest will be eradicated. But the author doesn't explain why, they assume that Forrest wont be able to regenerate. If you negate A it says they will be able to regenerate, destroying the argument.

It isn't an attack on the premise it's highlighting the assumption the author made between the premise and the conclusion.

Alex

@stepharizona said:
This is a great example to use the negation technique. The argument concludes that due to the described methods and impact of slash and burn Forrest will be eradicated. But the author doesn't explain why, they assume that Forrest wont be able to regenerate. If you negate A it says they will be able to regenerate, destroying the argument.

It isn't an attack on the premise it's highlighting the assumption the author made between the premise and the conclusion.

Yup -- just checked this question out and @stepharizona is correct. The conclusion is that if the slash-and-burn method is used in forests in the tropics, eventually they will be destroyed forever.

If we negate (A) "forests in the tropics do not regenerate well enough to restore themselves once they have been cleared by the slash-and-burn method"

Then the argument is destroyed. Thus the argument must DEPEND on A being true: That the forests do not regenerate well enough once they've been slashed and burned.

Also, you can reasonably and confidently eliminate the rest of the answers as well.

For (B) it doesn't matter whether some other methods are more/less destructive.
For (C) We don't care about the growth of native plants. And even so, maybe the soil is naturally deficient; that isn't necessary to make the conclusion work.
For (D) Suitable? Clearly not if it's going to permanently destroy the forests...
For (E) Irrelevant whether or not slash-and-burn yields more the FIRST year. We are talking about eventually what is going to happen. And that's our conclusion that the forests will be EVENTUALLY eradicated.

So that leaves us with (A) You need A to be true for the argument to work.

stepharizona

PS at this exact second @"Alex Divine" your karma is at 12345

Alex

@stepharizona said:
PS at this exact second @"Alex Divine" your karma is at 12345

Yes! Thank you! I am going to be reincarnated into a Sage