Page 1 of 1

A LR question, PT 50 Section 4, 18

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:21 pm
by sarahpp99
The correct answer is D. I don't get it. The conclusion is that either the three pesticides are all banned or they are all legalized. So the statement that one pesticide should be legal and another illegal, as D says, is negated, as the necessary condition that the former is less harmful to the environment than is the latter isn't true. Yet the stimulus says that Envirochem and Znar each cause greater environmental harm that does TSX-400. I am confused.

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.

Re: A LR question, PT 50 Section 4, 18

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:26 am
by Cobretti
sarahpp99 wrote:The correct answer is D. I don't get it. The conclusion is that either the three pesticides are all banned or they are all legalized. So the statement that one pesticide should be legal and another illegal, as D says, is negated, as the necessary condition that the former is less harmful to the environment than is the latter isn't true. Yet the stimulus says that Envirochem and Znar each cause greater environmental harm that does TSX-400. I am confused.

Any input would be appreciated. Thanks.
ETA: Didn't address your specific reasoning, here's a better answer...

It doesn't say one should be legal and another illegal, it says IF one is legal and another is illegal the legal one must cause less harm than the legal one. The current situation is in violation of this, but legalizing the banned (and less harmful) pesticide or banning the legal (and more harmful) pesticides would follow.

Re: A LR question, PT 50 Section 4, 18

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:41 am
by sarahpp99
mrizza wrote: ETA: Didn't address your specific reasoning, here's a better answer...

It doesn't say one should be legal and another illegal, it says IF one is legal and another is illegal the legal one must cause less harm than the legal one. The current situation is in violation of this, but legalizing the banned (and less harmful) pesticide or banning the legal (and more harmful) pesticides would follow.
I get what you said. Thank you. The whole question feels weird. Its reasoning feels like a LG question.

Re: A LR question, PT 50 Section 4, 18

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:22 pm
by natashka85
sarahpp99 wrote:
mrizza wrote: ETA: Didn't address your specific reasoning, here's a better answer...

It doesn't say one should be legal and another illegal, it says IF one is legal and another is illegal the legal one must cause less harm than the legal one. The current situation is in violation of this, but legalizing the banned (and less harmful) pesticide or banning the legal (and more harmful) pesticides would follow.
I get what you said. Thank you. The whole question feels weird. Its reasoning feels like a LG question.
U were accurate in your rephrasing but i will look at it this way,all I know from this freaking argument is either we should legalize them all or we should ban them.
A)we are discussing 3 pesticides not 2
b)again about two not right
c)again 2 not 3
d)the same elements as in the arguent
e)weakens it says the former is harmless but the argument says the former is still harmful
Also from your wording i think u got the question type wrong its actually strengthening question ,u dont need to look for negation cause its not an assumption question.