#3056

[pinkayt22]

#3056
P: If a plant is indigenous to a geographic location, it should be cultured in that location. (Correct Answer)
P: If a plant is not indigenous to a geographic location, it not should be cultured in that location.

(A): (Most palm trees should not be cultured in California.)

C: Most palm trees are not indigenous to California.

Can someone please explain to me why the first premise is better than the second?

[tommywallach]

Hey Pinkay,

Let's look at the arguments in their logical order.

If we know that:

1) If a plant is indigenous to a geographic location, it should be cultured in that location.

AND

2) Most palm trees should not be cultured in California.

then do we know:

Most palm trees are not indigenous to California?

We do! Because we have two connected "should" statements. If palm trees were indigenous to California, we would know that they should be cultured there, but we've been told they shouldn't.

Now let's look at the wrong answer. If we know that:

1) If a plant is not indigenous to a geographic location, it should not be cultured in that location.

AND

2) Most palm trees should not be cultured in California.

THEN do we know:

Most palm trees are not indigenous to California?

We don't, because there could be other reasons why palm trees should not be cultured in California. We know that non-indigenous things shouldn't be cultured, but we don't know if indigenous things should be cultured. So the fact that palm trees shouldn't be cultured doesn't necessarily mean it's not indigenous.

Another way to think is that the correct answer says "Any time something is indigenous, it should be cultured," so we know that if something shouldn't be cultured, it can't be indigenous.

The wrong answer says, "Any time something is not indigenous, it should not be cultured," so now we don't know anything about plants that are indigenous.

Hope that helps!

-t