- Sat May 14, 2016 11:15 am
#24745
Complete Question Explanation
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (C)
We must make more serious conservation efforts in order to preserve—for all time—our ability to use chemicals from plants. This is because many useful chemicals have been derived from rare or endangered species, and thus it is likely that many now extinct species could have given us more useful chemicals.
This is an assumption question. Be sure to eliminate answers that are wildly off-topic to X's conclusion, stated above.
Answer choice (A): This answer is incorrect because either rejecting or accepting this assumption as true does not affect the future ability to use plant-derived chemicals.
Answer choice (B): This answer is incorrect because it does not address the conclusion of X's argument in any way.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If the use of these plant-derived chemicals itself would lead to the plants' extinction, then X's argument that we can preserve for all time the ability to use such chemicals is destroyed. X argues that people should conserve in order to eternally ensure these plants' survival so that we can use them. But if in using these plants, we would render them extinct, then we can no longer ensure their survival for all time.
Answer choice (D): This answer is incorrect because it goes too far with the word “only.” X argues for conservation by contending that it is in peoples' best interests to do so (to preserve the use of useful chemicals). Thus, one (among others) necessary assumption of X's argument is that it must at least be possible to convince people to conserve by appealing to their self interest. This answer choice, however, by saying that such an argument is the only way to convince people to conserve. This is too strong for a necessary assumption.
Answer choice (E): This answer is incorrect. In fact, it is not merely not an assumption underlying and supporting X's argument, but it even weakens it. One necessary assumption of X's argument is that conservation efforts would be successful. But (E) attacks that assumption.
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (C)
We must make more serious conservation efforts in order to preserve—for all time—our ability to use chemicals from plants. This is because many useful chemicals have been derived from rare or endangered species, and thus it is likely that many now extinct species could have given us more useful chemicals.
This is an assumption question. Be sure to eliminate answers that are wildly off-topic to X's conclusion, stated above.
Answer choice (A): This answer is incorrect because either rejecting or accepting this assumption as true does not affect the future ability to use plant-derived chemicals.
Answer choice (B): This answer is incorrect because it does not address the conclusion of X's argument in any way.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If the use of these plant-derived chemicals itself would lead to the plants' extinction, then X's argument that we can preserve for all time the ability to use such chemicals is destroyed. X argues that people should conserve in order to eternally ensure these plants' survival so that we can use them. But if in using these plants, we would render them extinct, then we can no longer ensure their survival for all time.
Answer choice (D): This answer is incorrect because it goes too far with the word “only.” X argues for conservation by contending that it is in peoples' best interests to do so (to preserve the use of useful chemicals). Thus, one (among others) necessary assumption of X's argument is that it must at least be possible to convince people to conserve by appealing to their self interest. This answer choice, however, by saying that such an argument is the only way to convince people to conserve. This is too strong for a necessary assumption.
Answer choice (E): This answer is incorrect. In fact, it is not merely not an assumption underlying and supporting X's argument, but it even weakens it. One necessary assumption of X's argument is that conservation efforts would be successful. But (E) attacks that assumption.
make more serious efforts". Ultimately, though, the argument doesn't base itself on conditional claims, and the questions aren't about drawing inferences from or identifying flaws in those claims, so it may be unnecessary to do so. Just because you see something conditional doesn't mean you have to diagram it! Let the question stem help you decide whether that is worthwhile before forcing yourself to go through extra work that won't help.
that in this occasion, E)'s -----Few, if any, ---- means Possibility of 0 is also included. which is the reason that why C) will have stronger attacking hurting power to the conclusion than E) since negation of E)'s negation version can mean : None, at the same time; possibly some, species have been saved from extinction by human species.