PT32.S4.Q08 - figorian wildlife commission

Comments

• jknauf Alum Member

  October 2016 edited October 2016 1741 karma

  Hey B,
  
  So first lets start with the question stem. It's asking us, which one of the following principles, if accepted (true), would most strongly support the Figorian Development Commission's position.
  
  What we are looking for here is some sort of additional premise that if accepted, makes the argument stronger.
  
  So going straight to C: Only when this problem has been discovered to be true, should we act on the Figorian Wildlife Commissions recommendation.
  
  Now let's consider the question stem. If this statement is accepted, does it support the Development Commissions argument? Absolutely, because the Development Commission is saying there needs to be conclusive evidence before implementing a regulation of development.

  @bswise2 said:
  What if the Development Commissioner doesn't think they should implement regulations even when they notice a reduction in the species? What if he prioritizes growth, at any cost?
  

  These are all great assumptions! The problem, however, is that we must take on the question thinking 'this is accepted, does it help?'. We can't apply our own assumptions to the problem because we must take every answer choice as being accepted (true).
  
  Does that help?
• Sarah889 Alum Member

  October 2016 877 karma

  @jknauf Thanks for your response!
  
  So then, why is E wrong? Imprudence is definitely a legitimate addition to add in support of his argument. I don't see why C is any better. If anything, C just adds a condition in which his argument doesn't apply. Adding a premise that says: "My supporting premise is X, but my argument doesn't apply when condition Y triggers."
  
  I understand that the question stem wants an additional premise. I just can't see why C is the most supportive premise over E.
• 1 Like

  jknauf Alum Member

  October 2016 edited October 2016 1741 karma

  Yeah this is definitely a tricky problem with the more thought I put into it. I think I have a solid grasp now though.
  
  So we have our conclusion: we should allow development
  
  Our premises:
  
  1. Development may not affect wildlife
  
  AW/
  
  and
  
  2. Is necessary for growth
  
  NG
  
  So we need help to strongly support our conclusion: Premise ----> allow development
  
  C: only when a reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development has been found should regulation be implemented to prevent further damage.
  
  So our conditional logic is Regulation be implemented (Not allow development) AD/ -----> AW populations of endangered species by commercial development have been found (Affected Wildlife)
  
  Now lets take the contrapositive
  
  AW/ ------> AD
  
  If wildlife has not been affected ----> then we should allow development.
  
  Now lets refer back to our premises:
  
  1. Development may not affect wildlife.. Aha!
  
  AW/ ------> AD
  
  I believe I wasn't totally accurate when I was saying we are looking for an additional premise. The answer choice is more like supporting the conclusion by strengthening the premise, by saying unless we have hard evidence this affects wildlife, we should allow development.
  
  Before going on to answer choice E I want to address the point you made about the last sentence of the argument. The question reads "We have as much right to govern our own resources as countries that have already put their natural resources to commercial use."
  
  But so what? This isn't a premise used to get us to our conclusion of allowing development. Having the right to do with your natural resources what you will, doesn't support allowing you to develop. This statement also supports you have the right to preserve your natural resources just as much as you have the right to develop. So this sentence is like useless context.
  
  E: It is imprudent to allow further depletion of natural resources.
  
  But the development commission never says its imprudent, or that they don't care for the natural resources.
  
  Lets refer back to our premise: 1. Development may not affect wildlife
  
  So if it is imprudent to allow further depletion of natural resources, this doesn't help our argument. Because our argument is that Development may not affect wildlife, therefore we should be allowed to develop.
  
  
  
  
• 1 Like

  Gukmonster Member

  October 2016 19 karma

  I don't think you fully understand the Development Commission's response to the Wildlife Commission. Like what jknauf said, its a strengthening question for the Development Commission's (DC) position against the Wildlife Commission's (WC) position. So we are looking for something that would strengthen the relationship between the DC's conclusion and premises. So there's a phrase in the argument that answer choice C would really strengthen when E is not really a part of his overall argument.
  
  The DC's overall position starts off by stating that our nation is not like other industrialized nations that the WC is talking about; "we have not developed on wetlands in a flagrant manner at the expense of wild life". The DC even goes on to say that "We have conserved" to show that we are actually the opposite of those nations, to show that he is not against the WC's position; but rather, that the WC's position does not really apply in this situation. That is all context though, but the key phrase and premise (introduced by the since) from the DC's position that makes C is absolute right answer choice is this.
  
  DC's position: "Since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife and is necessary for growth, we should allow development."
  
  and answer choice c says...
  
  Answer choice C: only when a reduction of endangered species by commercial development has been found should regulation be implemented to prevent further damage
  
  That answer choices completely strengthens his argument! His premises for his conclusion to develop on wetlands depends on whether or not wetland development would affect wildlife. In answer choice C, he is saying that he would agree to regulation of wetland development only if there was proof or any evidence that the development of wetlands in their nation would harm such endangered species. You have to understand the his argument subtlety assumes that there has not been any evidence of such harm found in their nation. You also have to understand the his stance is that their nation is their nation is "much better"(might be exaggerating) than other nations at conservation efforts. To me, it even seems like the the DC might even be a little frustrated that his nation has to go through against the WC in order to use its own nation's resources, when other nations are just doing what they want to do with their respective resources (last sentence in his position). Thats why C is right because he concedes that his nation has implemented conservation efforts for endangered species, but if there is no proof (negation of the necessary condition in answer choice C) that wetland development would hurt any endangered species, or even wildlife in general, then there should be no regulations (literally the contrapositive of answer choice C).
  
  Answer choice E says: It is imprudent to allow further depletion of natural resources
  
  To me, answer choice E is just wrong. How has the nation of WC or DC been "imprudent" in its action? The DC even argues that they have been conserving despite the fact that other industrialized nations have been just plowing through their resources for growth. In fact, I think E is actually just the opposite of the DC's position. I think what you are trying to justify with E is what answer choice C does but a lot better because C does considers regulation, thus he does consider the possibility that the WC's position might be true. Personally, I think that the simplest way to rule out E is to see his argument as that we as a nation have been conservative enough, and we have considered the consequences of our action(which makes our action prudent), but unless you show me these so called consequences are a result of wetlands development, then we should be able to do whatever we want with these wetlands. This is probably a bad assumption and tone to put to the DC's position, but to me its the only possible way of saying why E is wrong without just saying that it would not make sense in his argument.
  
  Hope that helps, I know I repeated myself a lot but that's just how I saw the DC's position. Good luck studying!
  
  
  
• Gukmonster Member

  October 2016 19 karma

  sorry for the bad grammar
• Sarah889 Alum Member

  October 2016 877 karma

  @jknauf I looked at your response more closely since last night. THANK YOU. I see now that my error was probably rooted in my misunderstanding of what DC's argument was aiming for. I knew he was trying to say that we should allow development, but the variety of focuses among his premises (natural resources, other countries, previous conservation, the potential to not effect wildlife) definitely distracted me from the point. It's clearer to me now; thank you for that breakdown.
  
  @Gukmonster Thank you as well. Like I said above to @jknauf, I think my issue was getting distracted by the complexity of the evidence he was giving to support his claim. He talked a lot about other nations and comparing his nation to them, so I lost sight of the underlying point. Your explanation was immensely helpful.