33.1.18 (Principle Questions Problem Set 5)

Accounts Playable

I don't understand how A is the principle. Here is my breakdown:

The use of space satellites to study the environment is important. Problems can be identified well in advance, so people can act early. It makes sense that environmentalists don't think about the fact that the satellites may harm the ozone layer and lead to serious environmental damage.

What I am looking for: The principle I thought the answer choice was going to say was "sometimes doing something that has some beneficial consequences can have so severe negative consequences that it warrants not doing the action."

Answer A: How is this the correct answer? I really don't like that it is talking about "people tend..." How do we know what people tend to do? The argument is only concerning itself with the environmentalists.

Answer B: This is what I originally answered, but I see why it's wrong. The author I think is arguing the opposite of this. The spaceflights are so bad that we should discontinue them. If this answer choice flipped the words "negative" and "positive," then I think this could be a right answer choice.

Answer C: What do we know about technology in general?

Answer Are we solving the problem? Were the satellites even well intentioned? What if the passage is describing an accidental positive consequence? Lastly, the passage is saying that a separate problem (ozone layer damage) is being made worse.

Answer E: Often? We don't know this. Also, were the consequences "unforeseen?" The author implies that the environmentalists are "failing to consider" the possibility of the damage; to me this implies that they are ignoring/discounting this effect.

Hibiscus

For me, I thought the key is ">It is no wonder< environmentalists fail to consider both that spacecraft may damage the ozone layer, and that this damage could be serious enough to warrant discontinuing spaceflight". "IT IS NO WONDER" is important, because the author is obviously not surprised by the result.

If it is true that problems can be observed long before they would be noticed, allowing for intervention before the crisis stage, there must be a reason for why environmentalists still fail to consider the damage.

So why is the author not surprised at the fact that environmentalists fail to consider the damage even though the damage can be avoided?

A would provide a reason for why environmentalists fail to consider the damage of using space-based satellites, which is that people tend to ignore possible objectionable consequences of actions that support their activities.