#11- Spreading iron particles over the surface of the earth

[OriginalJane]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for all of your help responding to my questions so far.

My weakest areas in LR are Justify the Conclusion and Principle questions. Can you explain why the answer for Q #11 is B and not E? I narrowed down my answer choice to the two, but chose E. Is it wrong because the stimulus doesn't actually provide information to suggest that the iron-seeding strategy would exacerbate (ie. solely that "the effects have yet to be studied") the greenhouse effect?

Thanks,

Amanda

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Amanda,

Thanks for the questions! Just fyi I split them into two separate posts so it would be easier to follow each question discussion.

(E) is a deceptive answer, and you have to read it very closely to see why it's problematic. Let's start by looking at the stimulus, which roughly says that:

• P: Spreading iron particles causes increase in phytoplankton. An increase in phytoplankton causes a decreased amount of CO2. And that counteracts the greenhouse effect.
  
  P: The side effects of the iron-seeding strategy have yet to be studied, and the oceans are an important resource.
  
  C: Don't spread the iron particles.

In more abstract terms, there's a strategy here that can do some good (counteract greenhouse effect), but we don't know if will do bad, and with something so important involved (the ocean), we shouldn't just plow ahead and do it.

Answer choice (B) supports this thinking because it says that if you have to change something important (which would occur by seeding iron in the ocean), then don't do it if you don't know the effects.

Answer choice (E) involves a very sly wordplay that causes the main issue with this answer. In the stimulus, the problem is the greenhouse effect, and seeding iron particles into the ocean is part of the solution. In (E), the first part references a strategy for solving the problem (greenhouse effect), but then goes on to say "may instead exacerbate that problem"—but that's not the case! It's not the greenhouse effect that might be exacerbated, but rather that we could create a new problem in the oceans by seeding it with iron. Very tricky!

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[a19]

Hey Hey!

Quick question on this one. Is the reason that D is incorrect due to the fact it doesn't contain all the elements of the argument?

B Refers to:
1. Whether one should act
2. Whether one should act if they are working with an important resource
3. Whether one should act if consequences are unknown

D Refers to:

1. Whether one should act
2. Whether one should act when the resource in question is important

[Paul Marsh]

Hey a19! You're exactly right. The principle in (D) advocates for never altering an important resource, without regard for the consequences. (D) would be a better answer if the last two sentences of the stimulus looked something like this: "But while counteracting the greenhouse effect is important, the side effects of an iron-seeding strategy could be harmful to the ocean. Since the oceans represent such an important resource, this response to the greenhouse effect should never be implemented."

But our argument as written is more reserved; it's more-so concerned about the fact that the consequences are unknown, and so concludes that the response shouldn't be implemented yet. (B) better reflects this more qualified skepticism.

Hope that helps!