61.4.23 Columnist: Although much has been learned

Accounts PlayableAccounts Playable Live Sage ⭐
edited November 2015 in Logical Reasoning 3107 karma
Changed my answer during the exam from D to A, but only because of POE. I still don't really understand how D is a sufficient assumption.

This is a PSA question.

Although we have learned a lot, we are ignorant of a lot of things dealing with organisms. Allowing species that we are indifferent about to die would hurt the viability of other species. Therefore, if we have an interest in preserving any species, we should try to preserve the maximum number of species.

What I am looking for: If allowing a species that we are indifferent about to perish might undermine the viability of other species→we should preserve the max number of species.

Answer A: I fell for this bullshit answer. This just affirms the sufficient condition in the conclusion. It does nothing to address the relationship between the premise and conclusion.

Answer B: I think the passage implies the opposite. If we held action to this high of a standard, then how would prevent the death of a species that we are indifferent about?

Answer C: Human populations? Totally irrelevant.

Answer D: I was pretty iffy with this one, even when I changed it during BR. This states Allow change→Change won't jeopardize anything important to us. I am really having a tough time seeing how this paraphrases what I was looking for, though. How are these ideas relevant to the stimulus? Where is the idea of something being important mentioned in the stimulus?

Answer E: Best consequence for immediate future? Irrelevant idea.

Comments

  • iiiSpooniiiSpoon Alum Inactive ⭐
    277 karma
    Hey Accounts Playable, the stimulus states that:

    Premise: Allowing a species perish might undermine the viability of other species

    Conclusion: We should preserve the maximum number of species, which is another way of saying we shouldn't allow that

    The "important" part from AC (D) comes from the fifth line of the stimulus that puts us in a world where we care about preserving species.

    (D) states that *if an act jeopardizes something important to us* (that being to allow a species to perish might jeopardize the viability of other species, which is important to us since we care to preserve species) *then we should not allow it* (which, as aforementioned, is the conclusion of the stimulus though stated in a lot more wordy manner).

    Hope this helps with translating (D).
  • iiiSpooniiiSpoon Alum Inactive ⭐
    277 karma
    Btw, you're not looking for a sufficient assumption. There are no conditions to be connected; you're simply looking for a conditional statement or just a statement that says something on the lines of premise+conclusion from stimulus in order to validate it, since we're under the assumption the principle is valid.
Sign In or Register to comment.