Q23 - Naturalist: A species can survive

[noah]

Thanks for the question. I think your analysis is right on. Let me go through the entire question with you anyway.

Here we're asked to match the reasoning. The given argument has this structure:

X happening depends on Y. So, since X is unlikely/threatened, it's not because of Z, but because of not Y.

Before reading further, take a moment to chew that over and see how that's the basic structure.

Now, we're going to eliminate because of mismatched conclusions, premises or linkages between them. Often, as we're about to see, the first two reasons are enough:

(A) Premise is a weak match, but passable. Conclusion does not match - it is about rate. Eliminate.

(B) Premise does not match - it is about a comparison. Conclusion does not match - it is about what people should do.

(C) Premise does not match - it about what some students do. Conclusion does not match - it is comparing importance.

(D) seems to match! Keep for now.

(E) Premise does not match - where is the X depending on Y? Conclusion does not match - where is it being not Y?

To confirm (D):

X happening depends on Y. So, since X is unlikely/threatened, it's not because of Z, but because of not Y.


Not fearing change depends on knowing what the change will bring. So, since they ARE fearing change, it is not because of what the change entails, but because of not knowing what the change will bring.

Does that clear it up?


#officialexplanation

[ngogirl]

I was down to A and C. I think A is wrong because it talks about the faster we expend resources as opposed to a change not being too rapid, and it doesn't address the rate in the last premise of the stimulus.

And C is wrong because of "most important" indicates degree right? we don't know the proportional scale, and how thoroughly the student studies should be something related to the rate/how often the student studies... right?

[ngogirl]

Yes, thanks so much!

[disguise_sky]

I think there is something wrong with noah's explanation. It is not X depends on Y but if Y then X (=Y depends on X).

I think the "as long as" in the stimulus should be interpreted as "if" and thus the conditional relationship is:
change not too rapid --> survive change

Similarly, in (D), the conditional relationship is:
know what the change will bring --> not fear

I struggled with the phrase "as long as" when doing this question, wondering whether it is an indicator for a Sufficient condition or a Necessary condition, and finally made up my mind that it signals a Sufficient condition. Am I right? Please correct me if I am wrong. Thanks in advance.

[littletiger]

I think the "as long as" in the stimulus should be interpreted as "if" and thus the conditional relationship is:
change not too rapid --> survive change

"As long as" means "only if" and precedes a necessary condition.

[PhoebeL747]

"As long as" means "only if" and precedes a necessary condition.

Then why does it matches (D) which is about " if they know what the change will bring, then they do not fear" rather than "they do not fear only if they know what the changes will bring?"

"as long as" seems to mean "if" to me, too...

[ShiyuF391]

"As long as" means "only if" and precedes a necessary condition.

Then why does it matches (D) which is about " if they know what the change will bring, then they do not fear" rather than "they do not fear only if they know what the changes will bring?"

"as long as" seems to mean "if" to me, too...

I agree with you. As long as indicates sufficient condition.

[obobob]

Hi can anyone confirm how to diagram the “as long as” statement?

I feel like the sentence needs to be diagrammed as: survive —> NOT rapid

[ohthatpatrick]

"As long as you compliment her pasta, my mom will like you."


Does that mean

IF my Mom likes you, THEN it's guaranteed that you complimented her pasta
or
IF you compliment pasta, THEN it's guaranteed that she'll like you


I think the 2nd one is correct. I think "as long as" indicates a sufficient. It sounds like "it would be enough".

As long as you be yourself, the judges will like you.
Being yourself would be enough to make the judges like you.

In my example, we're briefing our partner that complimenting our mom's pasta will guarantee she likes them. But that doesn't mean it's the only way. Maybe our partner forgets to compliment the pasta but says lots of nice things about our Mom's decorations, flowers, paintings. Our Mom could still like the partner.

So it doesn't sound like "as long as" introduces a requirement.
"As long as you do X, you'll get Y" = "X suffices to bring about Y"