PT63.S1.Q1 - Backyard gardeners who want to increase

Comments

• ChaimtheGreat Alum Member 🍌🍌

  July 2018 edited July 2018 1277 karma

  Well Q1 is actually categorized as Misc-Strengthen which would suggest it is not a typical strengthen. But in principal, we are looking for a completion of the sentence that strengthens the argument.

  Conclusion: Our conclusion is that gardeners should try to grow plant x if they want to increase potato yields.

  Why?

  Premise: We can grow plant x and that attracts insects that will kill pests that pray on potatoes.

  The argument then makes a slight concession: It is true that plant x attracts insect y and many species of insect y can damage potato plants.

  We now explain why the concession is irrelevant

  Premise: The above fact in no way contradicts this recommendation (the conclusion) because...

  So now we are looking for an answer choice that, as a premise, strengthens our argument by explaining away the minor concession.

  Answer choice (C) does this well by saying that that type of insect y attracted by plant x is NOT one of the species that damages potato plants. This added premise strengthens our argument.

  I will try to give an analogous argument.

  If you want to increase your chance of living in the desert, bring a light. The Light will attract Mongoose who will kill snakes like the Cobra who would kill you. It is true some types of Mongoose can harm you in the desert as well. This does not contradict the recommendation however, as the species of Mongoose attracted by lights do not harm humans.
• 1 Like

  ChaimtheGreat Alum Member 🍌🍌

  July 2018 1277 karma

  For Q2 we are trying to weaken the conclusion that Jocko did not bark out as a way to keep the food. We are either discrediting the argument or supply a more likely alternative explanation. Would you mind elaborating on which answer choices you thought were attractive? That might help us tackle this question.