PT91.S2.Q22, Q23, & Q24 help

Xavier Jaxx

Hey everyone, I just took PT91 on lawhub and was wondering if anybody would be willing to help me out with a few explanations for some of the questions, specifically:

22: I chose E but not for any particular reason other than I didn't want to waste more time than needed on the question.

23: I can sort of see why AC (A) is the correct answer and if I read it more carefully I would've probably chose it but I chose AC (B) instead. I was stuck between both answers but in my head I was thinking AC (B) was correct because of how the last sentences says "cannot be caused by a simple phenomenon"

24: Was stuck between AC (C + D) ended up choosing C because of the time constraint and failed to realize that the use of 'some animals' obviously implies humans. Just wanted to confirm that C mentioning the precise location of genes is completely irrelevant to weakening the argument.

Much thanks to anyone who decides to explain these to me!

leoxnardx

Hey I got both 23 and 22 wrong, and better yet, I randomly picked one for 22 and picked B for 23 just like you did.

for 23, B is wrong on the ground of "many complex causes." The sociologists are just saying that there "cannot be one simple cause." What about one complex cause? What about 50 simple causes? These can all be true. Just because there cannot be one simple cause doesnt mean it has to be a bunch of complex causes. I came back and looked at this question and doubted my judgement on A and chose B. Since you kinda see why A is good, I'll keep it simple. A is good in the sense that the sociologists don't think the rise of political party can have a simple explanation of people care only about their own money. We can get this from linking the previous part of the argument with the sociologists' statement.

For 22, I made a post today explaining why I think it should be what it is. It is super long but you can go and check it out and I still want to answer 24 for you without posting an essay up.

24,
premise the change in genes is very very slight, provided some stats about how slight it is, and claim that since this kind of change is slight, there is no need to be worrisome about the harm.
Conclusion: the risk of this practice is minimal.
Right off the bat we know this argument is crap. We can totally expect changing one gene of something can create a whole new animal, and im sure there are movies out there about this exact topic. D matches up to this prediction, stating that in many instances, changing one gene leads to toxicity.
C is wrong. It basically says that some people don't know which gene is causing a certain characteristic. It doesn't matter if some people don't know where the gene is in corn that causes the corn to look yellow and has a few green leaves dangling on its side. Not knowing the exact location of the gene doesn't matter. The premise can still lead to the conclusion that changing one gene doesnt matter.

Hope this helps!