PT91.S2.Q12: could I get a fresh perspective?

Ashley2018Ashley2018 Alum Member
edited November 2021 in Logical Reasoning 2072 karma

So I’ve posted once before and would like to get a new perspective on this question. I thought the second sentence was supported by the first and so picked answer choice C. Why is that not the case? Could I have someone who truly understands the question break it down completely so this post thread doesn’t get too long? Like break down the role each sentence plays? I thought it was premise (people only care about what’s an obvious threat) subsidiary conclusion (that’s why people see contaminated water as a threat rather than ozone) then main conclusion (why we won’t have a grassroots movement to combat air pollution anytime soon) but that’s wrong apparently.

Comments

  • AAR 1292AAR 1292 Alum Member
    47 karma

    First Sentence: General Principle/Fact used to demonstrate how/why the conclusion of the argument will follow, given the scenario presented in the following sentences.

    Second Sentence: Presents the scenario that the above principle is meant to be applied to.

    Third Sentence: Conclusion, supported by the logic of the principle established in the first sentence; this is how it is a premise in relation to the argument.

    This is the way I dissected it when I read the question.

  • Ashley2018Ashley2018 Alum Member
    2072 karma

    @"AAR 1292" said:
    First Sentence: General Principle/Fact used to demonstrate how/why the conclusion of the argument will follow, given the scenario presented in the following sentences.

    Second Sentence: Presents the scenario that the above principle is meant to be applied to.

    Third Sentence: Conclusion, supported by the logic of the principle established in the first sentence; this is how it is a premise in relation to the argument.

    This is the way I dissected it when I read the question.

    How could you tell that the second sentence was an example of the principle and not just supported by it?

  • AAR 1292AAR 1292 Alum Member
    47 karma

    Because of the way the argument is structured:

    The first sentence lays out how people will behave under certain conditions.

    The second sentence seems to lay out a particular instance where these conditions are meant to apply.

    The argument relies on the first sentence in order to draw its conclusion, and doesn't use the second as a major premise or a sub conclusion in order to proceed.

    To me it's structured like this:

    1. If A, then B
    2. Here's A.
    3. Thus B
  • LogicianLogician Alum Member Sage
    2453 karma

    Perhaps trying a top-down approach in which we reorganize the structure of the argument from the conclusion down will prove more helpful.

    Conclusion (sentence 3): Widespread effort for more restrictive air pollution controls are unlikely.

    At this point you should be asking yourself why—why is widespread effort for these controls unlikely?

    Support/Premise (sentence 1): people usually only care about the most obvious public health problems. NOTE: this is a direct answer to the conclusion (another way you can tell this is supporting it)

    Now, looking solely at what we have so far, there is little to no support for the conclusion, as we have no idea whether air pollution is considered one of the most obvious public health problems or not. So in this case (again, looking only at these two sentences) a necessary assumption is that air pollution is not in fact one of the most obvious public health problems.

    example/support for S1 (sentence 2): There is rock solid evidence that ozone (an air pollutant) can be dangerous even in quantities much lower than those permitted by law. this is an example of a public health concern that is not one of the most obvious
    yet MOST people are aware that contaminated water presents a MUCH MORE widespread threat. This is an example of a public health concern that is one of the most obvious

    so in terms of caring about public health concerns: contaminated water (one of the most obvious health problems) > ozone (not one of the most obvious health problems)

    Looking at the answer choices:

    B: This accurately describes the role of sentence 1. It is a premise used to support the conclusion that widespread effort for more restrictive air pollution controls are unlikely. Why is widespread effort for these controls unlikely? because people care only about the most obvious health problems, and based on sentence two, we have an example of an air pollutant (which is not one of the most obvious health problems), hence the author concludes widespread effort is unlikely.

    C: This answer is descriptively inaccurate. The first sentence is not explaining why there exists awareness of HOW SEVERE the contaminated water problem is. Rather, the second sentence is an example that highlights what is said in the first—people caring only about the most obvious health problems (water contamination) and not others (air pollutants).

    Read carefully, sentence two states "most people are currently well aware that contaminated water presents a much more widespread threat to our community (than the air pollutant ozone)." So they're aware of the water contamination health problem. Saying that people usually only notice and care about the most obvious health care problems is not an explanation of why they understand, or are aware, of THE SEVERITY of the water contamination problem. Notice & care /= being aware of/understanding the severity of the issue. You could notice that a car speeds through the neighborhood, and also care about it, yet have no idea how fast its going, or how dangerous it is.

  • Ashley2018Ashley2018 Alum Member
    2072 karma

    @Logician said:
    Perhaps trying a top-down approach in which we reorganize the structure of the argument from the conclusion down will prove more helpful.

    Conclusion (sentence 3): Widespread effort for more restrictive air pollution controls are unlikely.

    At this point you should be asking yourself why—why is widespread effort for these controls unlikely?

    Support/Premise (sentence 1): people usually only care about the most obvious public health problems. NOTE: this is a direct answer to the conclusion (another way you can tell this is supporting it)

    Now, looking solely at what we have so far, there is little to no support for the conclusion, as we have no idea whether air pollution is considered one of the most obvious public health problems or not. So in this case (again, looking only at these two sentences) a necessary assumption is that air pollution is not in fact one of the most obvious public health problems.

    example/support for S1 (sentence 2): There is rock solid evidence that ozone (an air pollutant) can be dangerous even in quantities much lower than those permitted by law. this is an example of a public health concern that is not one of the most obvious
    yet MOST people are aware that contaminated water presents a MUCH MORE widespread threat. This is an example of a public health concern that is one of the most obvious

    so in terms of caring about public health concerns: contaminated water (one of the most obvious health problems) > ozone (not one of the most obvious health problems)

    Looking at the answer choices:

    B: This accurately describes the role of sentence 1. It is a premise used to support the conclusion that widespread effort for more restrictive air pollution controls are unlikely. Why is widespread effort for these controls unlikely? because people care only about the most obvious health problems, and based on sentence two, we have an example of an air pollutant (which is not one of the most obvious health problems), hence the author concludes widespread effort is unlikely.

    C: This answer is descriptively inaccurate. The first sentence is not explaining why there exists awareness of HOW SEVERE the contaminated water problem is. Rather, the second sentence is an example that highlights what is said in the first—people caring only about the most obvious health problems (water contamination) and not others (air pollutants).

    Read carefully, sentence two states "most people are currently well aware that contaminated water presents a much more widespread threat to our community (than the air pollutant ozone)." So they're aware of the water contamination health problem. Saying that people usually only notice and care about the most obvious health care problems is not an explanation of why they understand, or are aware, of THE SEVERITY of the water contamination problem. Notice & care /= being aware of/understanding the severity of the issue. You could notice that a car speeds through the neighborhood, and also care about it, yet have no idea how fast its going, or how dangerous it is.

    Ah…I didn’t see that bit about severity at all.

    Thank you :)

  • LogicianLogician Alum Member Sage
    2453 karma

    You’re welcome!

Sign In or Register to comment.