PTA.S1.Q15 - Antiwhaling activist: Not all species of whales

samirakhafasamirakhafa Alum Member
edited September 2018 in Logical Reasoning 64 karma

Hey guys!
I was hoping someone could possibly shed some light on this question. My break down of the stimulus is:

Conclusion: all whale- hunting should be banned

Premise 1: a ban on the whaling of endangered species cannot be enforced without banning the whaling of all other species

Premise 2: hunting endangered whale species should be banned

When I read the explanation in the book, they mention that premise 1 tells us that “a choice has to be made: either we do without an effective ban on the hunting of endangered species or else we ban the hunting of nonendangered species. The argument comes down in favour of banning the hunting of nonendangered species but provides no justification for preferring this choice over the alternative”

The problem I’m having is that I initially viewed that as a conditional statement. I dont see how we could chose between two options.

Any insight on this would be super helpful!
Thanks guys! :)

Admin note: edited title

Comments

  • Logic GainzLogic Gainz Alum Member ⭐
    700 karma

    When you say conditional statement, do you mean in terms of a sufficient and necessary condition? I'm not sure what you were getting at!

    The point of this question stem is to have us justify the conclusion with a principle. We aren't given justification for choosing one option over the other in the actual argument (i.e. saving all the whales instead of saving none) but that's what we're asked to do. It's not the stimulus's job to give us justification because we're asked to do that. The stimulus has one job, and that's to give us a conclusion. It definitely got the job done because one is present, but now we have to say why we must save all the whales even if that means protecting species that don't need protecting.

    We're supposed to supply a premise that gets us to the conclusion, if not, then I agree with you in that we are never given sufficient reason for saving all the whales, even if many of them don't need saving.

    Secondly, we got to the two options because the world in which we live regarding the stimulus is one in which the technology at our fingertips doesn't allow us to differentiate between whale species (i.e. endangered vs. non-endangered ones) when it comes to saving them. If we want to save the endangered species, we unfortunately have to save them all. Again, the conclusion says to save them all, but we are supposed to provide why we should, and that's what answer choice B provides.

    If this wasn't helpful, let me know, if so, let me know how I misunderstood!

  • NicholasDayNicholasDay Alum Member
    edited October 2018 86 karma

    In this question, we are looking for a principle that would justify the conclusion. I like to solve these questions by re-instering an answer choice into the premise and seeing how it works.

    The premise(s):
    1) Nevertheless, a ban on whaling of endangered species cannot be inforced without the banning of all whale species
    2) Hunting endangered whale species should be banned

    Conclusion: All whale hunting should be banned.

    A) If this was correct, it would wreck our argument. All whale hunting cannot be banned if fishers have a right to hunt endangered species. Eliminate.

    B ) This sounds good. Let's reinsert this to check though

    Nevertheless, a ban on whaling of endangered species cannot be inforced w/out the banning of all whale species (If a certain activity ought to be prohibitied, so should any other activity that interferes with the enforcement of that prohibition.) Hence, since hunting endangered whale species should be banned, all whale hunting should be banned.

    Bingo. If this principal is taken as an additional premise, it helps bridge the other premises and conclusion very well. This is our right answer.

    C) I think this question is trying to pull at your predetermined ethical boundaries. Most people in the Western world view whale hunting as unethical. However, ethics never appears in the premises nor has a real relation to the conclusion. Eliminate.

    D) This one is also a little tricky - the wording is slightly confusing. It is talking about allowed actions though (permissible), we want a principle that justifies our arugment to NOT allow whaling. Eliminate.

    E) This question also plays with your pre-known knowledge, as whaling has economic and commercial value. However, commercial value is not mentioned in the premises and it doesn't relate to our conclusion at all. Also, why would whaling non-endangered species be a non-commercial means? That's a little insulting to the blue whales of the ocean - just because they aren't white and have stories written about them. Anyway, you need to be careful with the wording on these types of questions. Make sure the principal has an actual relation to the conclusion. Eliminate.

  • samirakhafasamirakhafa Alum Member
    64 karma

    Hey guys!
    Thanks for your replies. I’m not sure why this question is still giving me a hard time. From what I understood from this argument is that the author jumped from what must happen ( if we want to enforce ban on endangered species, we must ban whaling on all species) to what should happen in the conclusion. But when I read the AC, I’m not quite sure how banning whaling of all species= an activity that interferes with the enforcement of banning endangered species.

Sign In or Register to comment.