Q14 - The book To Save

[tzyc]

Why is (E) wrong?
I thought since they gave away 2000 copies and it says "at least 2000 in one month...cause", they assume all of them who got the copy followed the program...
(Otherwise I wonder how they can assert or guarantee at least 2000)

Thank you

[patrice.antoine]

A detail creep is why I eliminated (E).

The stimulus talks about conversion to the environmental CAUSE. (E) talks about embracing the environmental PROGRAM. We cannot assume they are one in the same here.

[maryadkins]

The core is:

If you read TSE you'll heed its message + 2,000 people got TSE from EA --> EA gets credit for converting 2,000 people to environmentalism

What's the problem? Well, just because reading the book means you'll become an environmentalist doesn't mean that's the only way you can become one. Also, just because you got the book doesn't mean you read it. Both of these are assumed and are necessary.

(A) We don't have to assume this, because EA is just taking credit for the 2,000 conversions. If another organization gave out more books and converted those people, that's great--but EA could still potentially take credit for the 2,000 people who got its copies.

(B) So what if they paid or didn't pay, or were willing or weren't? The question is if they read it.

(C) Good for them, but irrelevant.

(D) Ah--if this were true, then the book didn't convert people. They were already converted.

(E) is out of scope--we don't need them to embrace the "program," whatever that may be. The argument is about whether they're converted to the "cause." I can believe in environmental causes and not support a particular program.

[WaltGrace1983]

I wish that this question was more specific in the answer choices. I think (D) would have been better phrased by saying that "none of those who received To Save the Earth in last month's free giveaway..." The way that it is stated seems like it could be including the possibility that some people in the organization gave away the book last year to another group of people who were not committed to the cause. You see what I mean?

[LauraS737]

Could someone just write the negation of answer choice (D).

Is it

Some of those who received To Save the Earth from a member of the Earth Association were already committed to the environmentalist cause when they received the book

or is it

Some of those who received To Save the Earth from a member of the Earth Association were NOT already committed to the environmentalist cause when they received the book

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Two ways to negate (other than by formula) are to say:

IT IS NOT TRUE THAT
claim X.

(and then think about what that means, in simpler terms)

or to say
Claim X.
LIAR!

(and then think about what that 2nd person is committed to defending)

For example, negating "Peter never drinks and drives"

IT IS NOT TRUE THAT
"Peter never drinks and drives"

(Okay, that means he's done it at least once)

or
"Peter never drinks and drives."
"LIAR!"

(Person 2 is committed to defending the idea that Peter has, at least ONE time, driven while drunk)

=======

The formula for negating "none" is "some" (and vice versa).

That's ALL you negate. You would always EITHER negate a main verb OR negate the quantity word, but never both.

So you would just say
"Some ppl who received TSTE from a member of EA were already committed to the cause when they got the book."