#13 - The solution to any environmental problem that is not

[tetsuya0129]

As a social science major, I am offended by this question since it assumes that environmental problems include ecological problems. (Sorry, this is just a whining.)

[Loyd_Xmas]

Could anyone please explain the logic behind translating the correct answer, "Few serious ecological problems are the result of gov't MM.", to "Most serious ecological problems are not the result of gov't MM?

I am confused because "few" does not mean "less than half of". What if there are only a few ecological problems in existence in this made-up scenario? Then, "not few" would actually mean "none". Nowhere in the question is the total number of problems mentioned, so wouldn't it be illogical to assume that since few problems are the result of gov't MM then most problems are not the result of gov't MM?

I would sincerely appreciate a logical explanation of this jump.

[Ryan Twomey]

Hey Cynberg,

I think you may be looking at the wrong answer choice. The correct answer choice is answer choice A, which is "few serious ecological problems are the result of government mismanagement." There is no jump between few and most in this answer choice.

You should have mapped out this stimulus. The evidence is as follows:
environmental problem and not government mismanaged ---->major change consumer habits---->econ enticing

You could map out the conclusion as well, which then gives us the assumption that "few of the problems are the result of government mismanagement." and this ends up being our correct answer exactly.

I hope all this helps.

Tetsuya0129, as a fellow science major, I would say that an ecological problem is an environmental problem, but that an environmental problem is not necessarily an ecological problem. That is just my opinion though. I

I wish everyone good luck in your studies.

Best,
Ryan

[sunshine123]

Hello,

I'm still unclear about B. A proctor writes that "Answer choice (B), meanwhile, is entirely outside the scope of the argument, because it is about problems that DO stem from gov't mismanagement. The entire argument was about problems that do NOT stem from such mismanagement. Consequently, (B) has no bearing on the validity of the conclusion." First, i'd like to point out that answer choice A, the correct answer, is also about problems that DO stem from gov't mismanagement. So, it would seem that the fault with B lies elsewhere than where some have located it.

We want an answer that entitles the speaker to his conclusion that few serious ecological problems will be solved, which requires that we assume that few governmentally caused ecological problems will be solved, or even exist. If, as B points out, no problems that stem from gov. mismanagement have solutions that are economically feasible, then, as I see it, that answer choice entails(strongly suggests) that no environmental problems that stem from government mismanagement will be solved, period(economic unfeasibility of problem precludes possibility of solving that problem). If that were the case, then the conclusion would follow. However, was I wrong to assume that the truth of B prevents the possibility of solving serious ecological problems caused by governmental mismanagement? If not, then I don't see how this question is incorrect.

[Robert Carroll]

sunshine123,

Answer choice (A) is positing that few serious ecological problems result from government mismanagement. First, it's not saying anything about those few problems - it's saying that the number of those problems compared to the number of all serious ecological problems is small. Thus, the majority of ecological problems are not caused by government mismanagement. That's not even a statement about the problems that are caused by mismanagement - it's a statement about all serious ecological problems, and a positing that only a small fraction of them are caused by government mismanagement.

So, answer choice (A) is definitely not talking about those problems. Answer choice (B) is, which is why we said answer choice (B) is out of the scope of the argument.

Your explanation doesn't seem to prove the conclusion, which is, after all, the last sentence of the stimulus. If, as you say, no problems that stem from government mismanagement will be solved, period...how does that prove the conclusion that few problems will be solved without economically enticing solutions? We're not trying to prove a conclusion that says that problems won't be solved. Make sure your reasoning applies to the stimulus - it's a Justify question, so the standard for an answer is that it proves the conclusion of the stimulus.

Robert Carroll