Premise and Conclusion Recognition Mini-Drill #6

[avengingangel]

how/why is "the rapid diminishment of the ecosystem of the Amazon threatens the entire planet" a premise? What "evidence exists?" And how does this give reason why the conclusion (taking steps to curtail development) should be accepted? I don't really understand the relationship here, or think it's rather loose.. any help is so appreciated. Just trying to connect the dots. Thanks!!

[Clay Cooper]

Hi avengingangel,

Thanks for your post. I will take your questions in order.

First, how/why is "the rapid diminishment of the ecosystem of the Amazon threatens the entire planet" a premise?

I think there are a couple of ways we can determine that this is a premise. First of all, ask yourself - how do I know that this is true? Is there any evidence to support it present in the stimulus? The answer here is that you essentially don't know that it is true, because you are given no reason to believe it - it is simply declared flatly by the author of the stimulus. That is how evidence is defined in LR - it is made-up pieces of information which are brought into existence by the author, and which we do not question. The rules of the game are this: the test-makers will make up some stuff and call it evidence, and we all agree to accept it as true, even though nothing will be offered to support it. The test-makers will then draw conclusions based on that evidence - THAT is what we are expected to question, and questioning conclusions (analyzing argumentation) is the skill that is tested in LR.

So, when (as here, with the claim that the rapid diminishment of the ecosystem of the Amazon threatens the entire planet) you are given no reason whatsoever to believe a claim, it is probably evidence.

Second, what "evidence exists"?

I don't know where you are quoting from, with "evidence exists" here, so I cannot really answer this; if you mean what evidence exists to suggest that the rapid diminishment of the Amazon ecosystem threatens the entire planet, then the answer is no evidence of this exists, and therefore this claim itself must be evidence.

Finally, how does this give reason why the conclusion (taking steps to curtail development) should be accepted?

The first premise - that losing the Amazon ecosystem threatens the whole planet - combines with the second premise (mentioned in the latter half of the sentence that also contains the conclusion) that these development plans will accelerate the loss of protected lands to suggest that carrying out these plans will increase the risk posed to the entire planet by the loss of Amazon ecosystem.

I hope that clarifies it.