Q3 - The level of sulfur dioxide

[hyewonkim89]

Hello!

I was able to eliminate C, D, and E but ended up choosing A as my answer for this question.

I thought if not following the regulations caused the increase level of sulfur dioxide, wouldn't it increase even more if they're not followed? Am I assuming too much instead of inferring?

Please help!

[sumukh09]

It only says that the levels are "slightly higher" so we can't infer that they'd continue to increase - that would be too much of a leap for an inference question.

B on the other hand is provable because of the last statement which is a conditional relationship:

Regulations Followed ---> Decreased

But we know that they have "not decreased" since they are slightly higher; this triggers the contrapositive
ie) ~Decreased --> ~Regulations Followed

~Regulations Followed = violations hence answer choice B

[ohthatpatrick]

Nice response, although I don't think I agree that "increase" vs. "slightly higher" is the problem with (A). Slightly higher does qualify as an increase.

I sympathize with how reasonable (A) sounds as an idea, but it's dangerous as an answer to an Inference question.

We really can't ever predict the outcome of a future hypothetical, unless the paragraph specifically gives us some conditional claim that allows us to predict it.

For example, if I was given:
Every time Mark sees a clown, he cries.

Then I could infer:
If Mark sees a clown tomorrow, he will cry.

But without that universal rule to follow, I should not predict any future hypotheticals.

In more common language terms, (A) makes a prediction about the future that goes on indefinitely.

For as long as the emissions regulations are not followed, there will be increasing sulfur dioxide.

Well, what if the atmosphere has a maximum level of sulfur dioxide? That would mean that the sulfur dioxide can't continue to increase forever.

What if business continue to ignore the emissions regulations, but someone comes up with a way of extracting sulfur dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby keeping the sulfur dioxide level from increasing.

(B) on the other hand, stays within what we were explicitly told. Plus, it does what most correct answers to Inference do: it combines two of the claims we're given.

By contrast, (A) is attempting to just rephrase the last sentence, but it's doing so in illegal negation fashion.

The last sentence said "if followed --> decrease" and (A) is saying "if not followed --> increase".

== other answers ==
(C) future hypothetical ... no way of knowing what stronger regulations would or wouldn't bring

(D) "main" source is too extreme

(E) "never" is too extreme

Hope this helps.

[phil.ogea]

In reading like a debater, I identified the huge flaw in this argument that they are assuming there are no other sources of sulfur pollution.

In inference questions, are we supposed to pretend the prompt is rock solid even when it is flawed?

Because if I ignore that flaw B is pretty clearly the right answer, but if I keep it in mind, B requires an assumption (which I believe is a no-no in inference questions) and D becomes a lot more attractive.

So do we ignore flaws, and am I correct that assumptions are no-no's?

[tommywallach]

Hey Phil,

Inference questions don't have arguments (no core with premise/conclusion), so there isn't anything to really argue with. That said, you do take everything written in an inference question as fact.

-t

[ganbayou]

Can we say since it says "would have decreased" in reality it did not occur? I did not used the idea "slightly higher"...would it be dangerous to always think when it says "would have" the opposite actually happened?