PT44 section 2 question 13 Forum

[nickbentley]

Will someone explain this to me? I don't understand how choice A is correct?

[dakatz]

I don't have the test, but if you PM me the question, I'd be happy to help (assuming this is a LR question)

[yzero1]

I actually just posted my solution to this problem in another thread, so I'm going to copy and paste:

The key to this question is to link "serious ecological problems" with "government mismanagement". The diagram for the info given in the stimulus is this (everything applies to environmental problems):

-(negative) Government mismanagement -> major changes consumer -> economically enticing

The problem with the conclusion is that it doesn't rule out the possibility that a majority/possibly all of those few serious ecological problems mentioned in the conclusion ARE the result of government mismanagement. If this is true, then the conclusion doesn't follow because the conditional chain wouldn't apply. Remember, the argument only applies to ecological problems that are not the result of government mismanagement. If, let's say, 99% of serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement, then only 1% of these problems would require economically enticing changes. We can't say how many of the other 99% require economically enticing solutions because the other 99% are not covered by the argument. Thus, we can't say that few of the serious ecological problems would be solved without economically enticing solutions, because for all we know, a large proportion of them COULD be solved without economically enticing solutions.

However, if we assume A, then the ecological problems fits into the conditional chain and the conclusion follows. A sample diagram follows:

"Serious ecological problems -(Few)> government mismanagement" translates to "serious ecological problems -(many/most)> - government mismanagement"

This creates this chain:

Serious ecological problems -(many/most)> - government mismanagement -> major changes consumer -> economically enticing , which justifies the conclusion.

[Sandro]

tough question I agree.