Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural [#permalink]
29 Jun 2005, 19:24
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
HideShow timer Statictics
Agricultural economist: We can increase agricultural production without reducing biodiversity, but only if we abandon conventional agriculture. Thus, if we choose to sustain economic growth, which requires increasing agricultural production, we should radically modify agricultural techniques.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the agricultural economist's reasoning?
A) Agricultural production should be reduced if doing so would increase biodiveristy
B) Economic growth should not be pursued at the expense of a loss of biodiveristy
C) Economic growth should be sustained only as long as agricultural production continues to increase
D) Preserving biodiveristy is no more important than increasing agricultural production
E) Agricultural techniques should be radically modified only if doing so would further the extent to which we can increase agricultural production.
Are we looking to "strengthening" the author's conclusion? Or are we being asked to provide a premise that would better help us reach the conclusion? Is there a difference? I get confused when i see this type of question. Any help is greatly appreciated.
I narrowed the choices to B and D. B seems to be the most plausible explanation. We are trying to further economic growth, but that it should not come at the expense of biodiversity. D is narrow in the sense, that it doesn't talk about economic growth. I may be wrong on this one.
A is out because the passage says nothing about increasing biodiversity
C makes it sound that the primary objective of the Agric. economist is to increase agric produciton by all means
D is out becuase no where in the stem was the preservation of biodiversity mentioned
E doesn't hold becuase it implies if x then y, if y then x which is not logical.
A = Agriculture production increase B = Biodiversity reduction C = Use of conventional agriculture
Argument: He is saying (A can happen without B happening) ONLY IF C does not happen.
Conclusion: Therefore if we need D, which requires A, we need C not to happen.
For the conclusion to be valid, B must not happen when A happens.
Therefore answer is B
AJB77, You seem to really understand these types of question very well and you have a very efficient methodology that I'd like to understand further.
#1) From the argument we just know that A can happen without B happening. Our conclusion says that if we need D to happen the following conditions must be met:
- A needs to happen
- C needs to not happen
With this information at hand, how can we leap to the conclusion that A and B are mutually exclusive in order for the conclusion to happen?
Also would you mind trying your logic with the following question:
The argument states that (A and ~B) => C and then says by the above logic and the fact that D => A (D = Economic growth) the conclusion is the D => C
Therefore we can see that this argument would be most strengthened if it changes into ( D and ~B) => C
I'm not saying that A and B are mutually exclusive. They may or may not be true. What we DO know is that A alone or ~B alone do not necessarily imply that C is true. But the one statement we are given is: