Q21 - Leona: If the average consumption

[weiyichen1986]

Dear people,

For this question, i was wondering the answer between B and C, B uses the word "accurate" which i think it is too strong! The stimulus was just guessing.....

so finally i picked C, which is a wrong answer:(

Is it because the argument is a conditional statement,

eggs cute in half - save 5000 humans.

so C is saying eggs not cute in half - more humans. which is not logical?

Just wondering if my explanation is right? Thanks in advance.

[bbirdwell]

"Accurate" is not generally considered a strong or extreme word. We don't know whether or not Leona is "guessing."

Besides, our task here is to find an answer that strengthens her argument that 5,000 lives could be saved while also addressing Thomas's concerns about the population growth.

(A) only speaks to pop growth and says nothing of lives saved
(B) yes! Supports the idea that 5,000 can be saved, and addresses Thomas's population concerns by saying that those people who are "saved" from from eggs may die from something else, and therefore not actually increase the population.
(C) is not supported by the argument, but it's not necessarily illogical. This is not the correct answer because it does nothing to assuage Thomas's concerns about the population. In fact, it does the opposite.
(D) again, this is half-scope. It says nothing about lives saved.
(E) is irrelevant.

[soyeonjeon]

This is for 22
I could not post this as a separate new topic for some reason.
I would appreciate it if you could move it as a separate thread.

So with regard to 22, this is a must be true question. Why would C fail to be an answer? Is it because of "excessively"? It seems to contain all the elements from the stimulus.
Also, why would A fail to be an answer?

thanks in advance.

--------------------------------
This one is for 21.
Also for #21,
I do not clearly understand the stimulus or the answer.

I know that C, D, E are incorrect.
But by egg does Leona mean eggs that are edible?
How would not eating eggs save lives by 5,000? That's quite random. I was thinking that it is some part of human organ or animal organ.

Also, could you say some more on answer B?
I also do not understand what is meant by "did not do so even if they died for some other reason."
shouldn't there be "," after did not do so?

Thanks.

[WaltGrace1983]

This, to me, is a really tricky argument with a vague problem. Let's analyze this strengthen question.

Leona:

Average consumption of eggs cut in half
→
Perhaps 5,000 lives saved

Thomas:

A single change in diet would result in a population increase of 50,000 in 10 years
→
Leona's conclusion is doubtful

To put this delicately, this gap is really tough to see and I initially didn't see it. This is because it plays with the typical use of the word "save" when referring to "saving lives." When we refer to "saving lives" we traditionally think that those people whose lives were saved did not die. Yet what we really mean is that the people whose lives were saved did not die...from that particular cause. If I am drowning in a pool and you "save my life," you are really just protecting me from drowning. I could choke on a chicken bone later that day and die in some other way. Thus, the gap is that Leona is talking about "saving lives" and Thomas is talking about "population increases." These two concepts are different.

Our Task: We want to both (1) address Thomas' point, by saying something about how lives saved does not mean increase in population, and (2) clarify Leona's point. These two tasks are seemingly one in the same, both referring to the gap mentioned earlier.

(A) We don't know if the "base year" talked about is unusually low or not. We simply cannot establish the sufficient condition, which makes me doubt the correctness of this answer. I posted a question about it here but as of right now I am just going to assume that, because the sufficient condition isn't satisfied, the answer is void.

(B) This one looks pretty confusing but it seems to relate to the flaw in the argument. Let's break down what this is really saying...

It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as the people who should have died due to poor diet, didn't die. It doesn't matter that they actually did due to other reasons.

This is incredibly hard to sift through in the heat of the moment. I would just say that this looks good and to skip it and move to (C), hopefully finding the right answer by elimination and then confirmation rather than the other way around.

(C) This seems to just boost the premise. We aren't concerned about whether or not the egg consumption was reduced by more than half - we are strictly talking about reducing it by half. By taking our premise and just making it more extreme, we don't really do that much to the argument.

(D) This doesn't relate to the egg consumption conundrum! All this answer choice says is that population growth is determined by more than birth rate - it is also determined by changes in life expectancy. So what?! How does this relate to eating eggs?

(E) This says how egg consumption can be cut in half. However, this doesn't matter. We don't care how. We care about the effects of egg consumption!

So we can see more clearly that (B) is the best (only correct) answer. Does it fulfill both tasks? It does. It shows how people can die and still be saved while thus also showing that the population doesn't have to increase. (B) isn't what I hoped for, but it works!