Q3 - Opponents of peat harvesting

[wj097]

Hey guys,

I had a general question regarding what aspect of an answer choice in this question makes it a valid strengthener/weakener. Specifically can a valid strengthener/weakener merely address the CONCLUSION and not the REASONING.

For this question:
P: Ireland did peat harvesting without water contamination
C: Safe to proceed peat harvesting in this country

So, if an answer choice said "the peat harvesting in some countries have revealed significant air contamination issue due to xx gas emitted through photosynthesis of peat", while this sidesteps on the water contamination issue (which constitutes the argument), it directly weakens the conclusion. Now, should I say this type of answer choice is irrelevant since it doesn't directly address the reasoning or still keep it as a valid weakener...??

Thx.

[ohthatpatrick]

Very insightful question, for which I have a pretty concise answer.

Yes, I would say that any answer choice that strengthens the conclusion or weakens the conclusion (even if it does so in such a way that seemingly has nothing to do with the premise/reasoning) is a legit answer.

If we wanted to, though, we could probably say that an answer that seems to have nothing to do with the premise could still reflect an assumption in the reasoning.

For example:

The Toyota Prius has really sluggish acceleration. Thus, you shouldn't buy a Prius.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken this argument?

(A) The Prius gets much better gas mileage than almost all other cars.

This definitely weakens the argument, even though it has nothing to do with acceleration.

However, it does, in a shadowy way, still address an assumption in the reasoning.

What were some of the original assumptions?
-Sluggish acceleration is a reason not to buy a car.
and
-The Prius doesn't have any redeeming qualities that more than offset the negative quality of sluggish acceleration.

So our correct answer (A) does deal with the reasoning, insofar as the "sluggish acceleration" premise gives way to both of these assumptions.

Similarly, in your peat example ... the original argument had at least these two assumptions in its reasoning:
- What's true for Ireland will be true for this country as it relates to peat-harvesting
and
- There are no other concerns besides water contamination that would militate against proceeding with peat harvesting

So the example you gave about the toxic emissions would Weaken the argument by going against the conclusion and countering this 2nd assumption.

In the end, let's return to the simple theme from the outset: if it weakens the conclusion, it is a good weaken answer. If it strengthens the conclusion, it is a good strengthen answer.

[wj097]

For example:

The Toyota Prius has really sluggish acceleration. Thus, you shouldn't buy a Prius.

What were some of the original assumptions?
-Sluggish acceleration is a reason not to buy a car.
and
-The Prius doesn't have any redeeming qualities that more than offset the negative quality of sluggish acceleration.

Similarly, in your peat example ... the original argument had at least these two assumptions in its reasoning:
- What's true for Ireland will be true for this country as it relates to peat-harvesting
and
- There are no other concerns besides water contamination that would militate against proceeding with peat harvesting

Really helps to be guided through the thought process! It's very clear now.

On a separate note, since you have mentioned the necessary assumptions(?) for the arguments, still some lingering questions after reading them multiple times...

for the case of Peat example, I feel like the 2nd assumption "There are no other concerns besides water contamination that would militate against proceeding with peat harvesting" sounds bit too strong for a necessary assumption, and thought maybe it should be worded more like as in your Toyota Prius assumptions i.e., putting into more relative terms (..that MORE than offset...) than absolute (...there are NO OTHER concerns...)
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thx!

[nmop_apisdn2]

Just in case anyone needs the credited response, it's B. The person above was using (A) as the correct answer in response to their example.

[WaltGrace1983]

for the case of Peat example, I feel like the 2nd assumption "There are no other concerns besides water contamination that would militate against proceeding with peat harvesting" sounds bit too strong for a necessary assumption, and thought maybe it should be worded more like as in your Toyota Prius assumptions i.e., putting into more relative terms (..that MORE than offset...) than absolute (...there are NO OTHER concerns...)
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thx!

I think you'd be right here. That IS too strong for a necessary assumption. There could absolutely be other concerns, just ones that are pretty small. Maybe the leather in the car will crack after 300,000 miles of usage - is that reason enough to not buy a car? Probably not.

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree with Walt. The original phrasing was too harsh to be an accurate answer on Necessary Assumption (I was just being conversational).

For the Prius example, there would have to be language that indicates that some unconsidered factor is a MORE important advantage than sluggish acceleration is as a disadvantage.

For the peat example, i.e. Q3, you wouldn't need comparative language, since the conclusion is simply about safe vs. not safe.

So you'd have to assume there aren't any other factors besides possible water contamination that might result from peat harvesting and pose some sort of safety hazard.

[balint327]

The topic is peat-harvesting, and the author disagrees with opponent and further concludes that "We can safely proceed with the harvesting of peat". Here is how I processed the argument:
The opponent presents a disadvantage to peat harvesting; "alter the ecological balance of our peat-rich wetlands and that, as a direct consequence of this, much of the country's water supply would be threatened by contamination". The way the author responds is not by putting forward an advantage that may out weigh a disadvantage, but rather uses Ireland as an example of a place "where peat has been harvested for centuries, the water supply is not contaminated". By using Ireland as a example, the author assumes that the features or characteristics of Ireland must have something in common that is at least relevant to the country talked about in the stimulus. Having said that, the correct answer choice brings forward a relevant feature of both country x, and Ireland. In which case, it strengthens the argument by pointing out that in Ireland, the original ecology of the peat-harvesting areas are virtually identical to that of the up disturbed wetlands of this country (feature or characteristic) And so now knowing this piece of information, having been told in the stimulus that in Ireland, where peat is harvested, the water supply is not contaminated we have strengthened the argument by bringing forward an assumption the author makes in using Ireland as an example, and a reason why the opponent's claimed consequence will not occur based on the idea that, since the ecology of the original peat-harvesting areas in Ireland are the same as the current ecology in Country x, and since no water contamination occurred in Ireland after peat-harvesting, the same condition should occur in Country x (that being, no water contamination after peat-harvesting).