Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

PT 59 Section 2 (LR1)

ppertierrappertierra Alum Member

Could somebody explain to me why the correct answers are correct for questions 7, 18, and 25?
Why is 7 (e) instead of (b), why is 18 (d) instead of (c), and why is 25 (b) ?

Appreciate any help, thanks


  • Mo ZubairMo Zubair Alum Member
    391 karma

    See if below helps you out:

    1. In an argument part questions, we are essentially trying to find what role a statement is playing in the argument. We are not really concerned with analyzing the argument, but we want to ensure we can label each statement correctly i.e identify conclusion, premises etc.
      In this question, the relevant statement is essentially context and other people claim (some say…) about context is given. The other people claim is trying to explain the context. And our argument tries to refute that other people claim by saying “however, there must be another….”.
      B is simply wrong because it is not the reason given for claim of other people that our argument tries to refute.
      E. This is correct because this shows that the claim (position) the columnist is trying to undermine is explaining this context.

    2. Again an argument part question where only D is referring to what statement is doing correctly.
      A and E are wrong because this statement is not a hypothesis. B is wrong because it is not even describing the argument correctly as the conclusion of the argument is not that a certain view is misguided. In fact, argument is agreeing with Malthus conclusion but just based on a different reason. C is wrong because argument is not saying that this statement supports Malthus conclusion. In fact quite the opposite.
      It is a general fact (food production is increasing more rapidly than population) and argument concludes that there will be famines etc. therefore, this general fact will change as if increase in food production can continue there will be no famines.

    3. Argument tells us that methane is also a greenhouse gas just like CO2. It says that ocean were not frozen because of a lot of green house gases. Then concluded that it likely that greenhouse gas was Co2. Well, why it was CO2. It could be methane or any other greenhouse gas. This is the assumption the B attacks by saying hey methane was much more present

  • ppertierrappertierra Alum Member
    29 karma

    Thank you for the help!

Sign In or Register to comment.