Q8 - Which one of the following

[geverett]

Here's a quick summary of the arguments:

Figorian Wildlife Commission: Development threatens endangered species in wetlands. We must regulate development by requiring that any future wetlands that are developed be replaced by the construction of new wetlands. This would result in zero reduction of wetlands and no threat to the species that inhabit them.

Figorian Development Commission: We do not even know if any development would affect wildlife, and we need more development in order to grow. We should allow development.

The question: Which principle would support the development commission's argument against the wildlife commission.

(A) There is nothing about "international agreements" in the argument.
(B) There is nothing about "future generations" in the argument.
(C) This definitely supports the developer against the wildlife commissioner. It basically says that it is necessary for there to be conclusive proof that a reduction of endangered species populations is occuring before any regulation against development is implemented.
(D) This is too broad. The argument only talks about preservation of wetlands, and this talks about "any further environmental damage . . ."
(E) This serves to weaken instead of support the development commissioner. If this was the case then Figoria should not develop at all, because of the loss of wetlands that would result.

[noah]

Here's a quick summary of the arguments:

Figorian Wildlife Commission: Development threatens endangered species in wetlands. We must regulate development by requiring that any future wetlands that are developed be replaced by the construction of new wetlands. This would result in zero reduction of wetlands and no threat to the species that inhabit them.

Figorian Development Commission: We do not even know if any development would affect wildlife, and we need more development in order to grow. We should allow development.

The question: Which principle would support the development commission's argument against the wildlife commission.

(A) There is nothing about "international agreements" in the argument.
(B) There is nothing about "future generations" in the argument.
(C) This definitely supports the developer against the wildlife commissioner. It basically says that it is necessary for there to be conclusive proof that a reduction of endangered species populations is occuring before any regulation against development is implemented.
(D) This is too broad. The argument only talks about preservation of wetlands, and this talks about "any further environmental damage . . ."
(E) This serves to weaken instead of support the development commissioner. If this was the case then Figoria should not develop at all, because of the loss of wetlands that would result.

Great explanation!

[gplaya123]

I have a question!
So basically,
C is right because
To implement anything that prevent damages to the resources
->
reduction of animal populations;

Yet, the thing that they both are talking about is
the size of Wetland not size of animal population right?
Thus, since as mentioned above, there is no conclusive proof that there is reduction of population (even though there is a threat to them), this is the correct answer?

[noah]

I have a question!
So basically,
C is right because
To implement anything that prevent damages to the resources
->
reduction of animal populations;

Yet, the thing that they both are talking about is
the size of Wetland not size of animal population right?
Thus, since as mentioned above, there is no conclusive proof that there is reduction of population (even though there is a threat to them), this is the correct answer?

Yes, that's why (C) is right.

And, I agree, they're both talking about the size of the wetlands, though they do talk about the effect on population.

[WaltGrace1983]

Here's a quick summary of the arguments:
(B) There is nothing about "future generations" in the argument.

Really like the analysis but I have been trying to use my "this is out of scope" explanations sparingly to develop my skills better. I find that if I get too "out of scope" crazy then I lose my understanding because I am just word-matching. Anyway, I am going to add to this wonderful analysis with more problems with this answer choice. All the wrong ones are out of scope to some degree, yet there is a bigger issue at hand:

(B) Forget the scope issue and look at what this is saying: Wildlife preserved is more important than economic needs of individual nations. This would hurt the FDC's argument! It is saying that the very thing that the FDC is fighting for (economic growth) is actually less important than the thing that the FDC is fighting against (wildlife preservation).

[jm.kahn]

Perhaps because I have been doing LR from recent PTs lately, I was very confused by this question and eventually got it wrong.

I eliminated C because there is no evidence that the reduction in endangered species population has not occurred. An absence of evidence that the populations have reduced is not an evidence of absence of population reduction. This would strengthen the FDC's argument only when there is no reduction in endangered species' population. The FWC's statement actually suggests that the opposite may be true, and that the population reduction may have occurred even though it only says that many species have become endangered.

Making this kind of an assumption to support an argument in the PT-50+ LR would never occur.

Interested to know if this is a sort of odd question in that regard and if this reasoning is correct. Is there any point in doing questions such as this as the reasoning used to justify the credited choice of C would never occur in a recent LR?

[BarryM800]

Just wanted to clarify some confusions I have with this question. The stimulus is a two-people dialogue, but Q7 is specific to Figorian Wildlife Commission's argument and Q8 is specific to Figorian Development Commission's argument. I really do not see the point of combining the two arguments in answering either question. I tend to think Q7 and Q8 are indeed two separate questions.

In this question, the instructors seem to focus on the premise "since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife," but that is just one of at least four premises in support of the conclusion. It seems to me that the general argumentative approach is that since other nations have done it (i.e., allowing development), albeit at the expense of wildlife, we should do it too.

(C) establishes that: NOT allow development (implement regulation to prevent further damage) → found reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development; CP: NOT found reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development → allow development. But doesn't (C) contradict the premise that allowing development albeit "at the expense of wildlife" and "putting natural resources to commercial use," which could very well include reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development and other potential detrimental consequences? Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

Just wanted to clarify some confusions I have with this question. The stimulus is a two-people dialogue, but Q7 is specific to Figorian Wildlife Commission's argument and Q8 is specific to Figorian Development Commission's argument. I really do not see the point of combining the two arguments in answering either question. I tend to think Q7 and Q8 are indeed two separate questions.

In this question, the instructors seem to focus on the premise "since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife," but that is just one of at least four premises in support of the conclusion. It seems to me that the general argumentative approach is that since other nations have done it (i.e., allowing development), albeit at the expense of wildlife, we should do it too.

(C) establishes that: NOT allow development (implement regulation to prevent further damage) → found reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development; CP: NOT found reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development → allow development. But doesn't (C) contradict the premise that allowing development albeit "at the expense of wildlife" and "putting natural resources to commercial use," which could very well include reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development and other potential detrimental consequences? Thanks!

I agree that Q7 and Q8 are separate questions that both refer to the same stimulus. But Q8 is about both the development and wildlife commissions: "would most strongly support the Figorian Development Commission's position against the Figorian Wildlife Commission's position." And the correct answer doesn't have to contradict anything or make the argument airtight in a principle support question. It just has to make the argument more likely, which (C) does.