PT11 S4 Q21 - hard weakening question

jknarf513jknarf513 Member
in Logical Reasoning 189 karma

When I first did this question, I crossed everything off and was left with E. I almost chose it, and then I thought it felt a lot like a trap AC...
The stimulus is telling us that if a resource becomes scarce, new technologies that create the ability to use new resources arise. As people start using these new alternative resources, the demand for the original resource declines, and whatever amount is then present in that original resource can be sold to those who still want it. Then they give some examples of things that were once the sole resource for a thing, but were then supplemented by other resources. The author asserts that bc new technologies are constantly replacing old ones, (conclusion:) we can never run out of natural resources.
E says that the biological requirements for substances like air and water will not be impacted by technological change. I thought, at first, this meant that "there are some resources that technology cannot replace". But then I second guessed myself and thought, "what do we really care if the biological requirements of that thing-- not the thing itself-- is unaffected by technological change? Even if technology can't change the fact that water needs hydrogen and oxygen to be water, couldn't technology develop different resources that could replace water and air in the future?" Couldn't we use other liquids(not water) or other kinds of energy(not air) to, for example, power things? Is the assumption here that water and air, as necessary for life, are not interchangeable with anything else? Like, if water runs out and technology can't replace it, we CAN run out of important natural resources?
Using the example in the passage of trees: sure, the biological requirements of a tree -- what makes a tree a tree-- is not affected by technology. But we can make steel or plastic, a new substance entirely, to serve the same purpose of that wood.

I ended up choosing C over E after I re-read the ACs because I was thinking that if companies won't invest in the new technologies, they won't be created in the first place. I didn't love the words "at first" and I knew my reading of the AC was assuming things, but I just thought that E was sort of irrelevant but attractive.

What am I missing? #help

Comments

  • McBeck418McBeck418 Member
    edited September 2021 500 karma

    The author believes that when natural resources are low, we can just rely on the change of technology to allow us to do the same thing without the resources in question. Instead of an ox, use a tractor.

    E tells us that we have a biological need for air and clean water, implying a continual demand that will never go away, otherwise we'll die. If we were to use up or pollute all of the air and water and technological change has no affect on how much we need air and water, we are SOL. There is no means to replace our need for these resources through technology. That coupled with perpetual demand means those resources may eventually deplete because there is nothing available to replace our need for oxygen with. Therefore, it is less true that we will never run out of natural resources.

    C tells us that business might lose money at first, but that doesn't get to the issue of how do we handle the constant demand for air once we start running out and have nothing to replace it with. I think you'd have to make large assumptions for C to be impactful to this argument.

  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma

    This one got me too. Now I understand. The process by which dwindling resources return to a state where supply meets demand, is explained by a few examples. Add in the fact that this process doesn't actually work for clean air and water.... the conclusion does not follow that we will Never run out of important resources (bc new technology does not affect them in the same way as the given examples).

Sign In or Register to comment.