#6- Forestry official: Many people think that if forest fire
6 posts • Page 1 of 1
Please post your questions below! Thank you!
Could you please tell me why B is better than C? I can't tell why C is wrong...
For Answer C the "ideas that most people have about how it should do its job" would be referring to the sufficient part of their argument, which is that forest fires are not being extinguished properly. But the Forestry Official's argument is structured to attack the necessary part of their argument, which is that the Forestry Dept. is not doing its job properly. It does this by focusing on the reasons why the Forestry Dept. conducts its fire extinguishing in a way that people may not initially understand. But again the purpose is not to show what would happen if the Forestry Dept. listened to the folks who didn't understand why they were allowing fires to burn, it's to show why those people are wrong for believing that the Forestry Dept. is not doing its job properly.
Hope that helps!
If you’re needing an additional reason to reject (C) not that the stimulus says “MANY people think” while the answer choice requires information on ideas that “MOST people have”. The stimulus does not, however, give any insight into what most/the majority of people think. Most people could think firefighters should allow small fires to burn.
Can you clarify why C is wrong? I don't understand your point about the necessary/sufficient component of the argument. I understand the most vs. many issue (thank you for adding that), but i would like to understand the point Malila is making.
Gg2019: Boom! Nice work there! C can be rejected because we have no idea what polices "most" people think the forestry department ought to follow.
lsatter430, what Malila is saying here is that the folks who are unhappy with the forestry department are making a conditional argument: IF you don't put out the small fires, THEN you aren't doing your job correctly. The author isn't arguing about the sufficient condition - he agrees that they aren't putting out every small fire. Instead, he is arguing that the alleged necessary condition is not necessary - they ARE doing their job properly. The claim in question about small fires clearing out small trees and debris is not about whether they are doing their job properly, and so it doesn't address the part of the opposing argument that he argues against. It's "sure, they do that - and that's good". It isn't about the consequences of following a policy, but about what happens when the fires burn.
I hope that helps!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
6 posts • Page 1 of 1