SuperPrep B, 1st LR #23 Forum

[Knock]

This question has got me confused, and the SuperPrep explanation didn't help me.

If someone could break this question down to me and explain why C is correct, and also why the answer I chose, A, is incorrect, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

[yoni45]

The problem with the argument is that it creates a false dichotomy. It basically presupposes that you only have two options -- either deep-tilling, or no tilling. It establishes that deep-tilling is bad, therefore you should do use a no-till method.

The question is asking for a necessary assumption -- well, in order for the argument to work, you *must* assume (C) to be true. That is, you must assume that any kind of tilling that is not "deep tilling" is not viable. Had some other form of tilling been viable (say, "shallow tilling"), then you don't necessarily need to use "no-till methods" to avoid the dangers of "deep tilling". A non-deep form of tilling might work too.

For (A), you simply don't have to assume that such erosion makes farmers want to till "more deeply". There could be one standard depth to which "deep tilling" applies, for example. Plus, this gets into the whole "what farmers want to do" can of worms, about which we know nothing about. Ie, we don't need to assume that farmers "want" to do anything particular.

[Knock]

The problem with the argument is that it creates a false dichotomy. It basically presupposes that you only have two options -- either deep-tilling, or no tilling. It establishes that deep-tilling is bad, therefore you should do use a no-till method.

The question is asking for a necessary assumption -- well, in order for the argument to work, you *must* assume (C) to be true. That is, you must assume that any kind of tilling that is not "deep tilling" is not viable. Had some other form of tilling been viable (say, "shallow tilling"), then you don't necessarily need to use "no-till methods" to avoid the dangers of "deep tilling". A non-deep form of tilling might work too.

For (A), you simply don't have to assume that such erosion makes farmers want to till "more deeply". There could be one standard depth to which "deep tilling" applies, for example. Plus, this gets into the whole "what farmers want to do" can of worms, about which we know nothing about. Ie, we don't need to assume that farmers "want" to do anything particular.

Thank you so much, I get it completely now! I was mostly having trouble trying to wrap my mind around A, but you pointed out that the wants of the farmers don't need to be assumed or taken into account to logically complete the argument, which fixed it for me.

Thanks again!