Sociologist: Climate and geology determine where human industry can be

my pick ic (C).

Sociologist: Climate and geology determine where human industry can be
established . Drastic shifts in climate always result in migrations, and migrations
bring about the intermingling of ideas necessary for rapid advances in civilization.
The sociologist’s statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the
following?
(A) Climate is the primary cause of migration - the author did not say that...he says drastic shifts in climate result in migrations
(B) All shifts in climate produce a net gain in human progress - not mentioned in the paragraph
(C) A population remains settles only where the climate is fairly stable.
(D) Populations settle in every place where human industry can be established - migration of population can bring industries. the paragraph does not say that people go where industries are established
(E) Every migrations accompanies by rapid advances in civilization - too strong statement.

I originally picked A but now realize the wording is too strong. Yes, shifts in climate cause migration, but nowhere does it say it is the absolute number one reason migration occurs. Heck, it could be more related to food or water for all we know based on the stimulus. 

Both B and E are very similar in strength, so if you have an issue with one, should feel the same about the other. Migration yields the ideas necessary for advancement, but the advancement itself requires some bright minds to execute upon those ideas.

C is vague enough to be correct.

+1 for C.

A is not correct, as the argument does not establish the Causality of Climate ==> Migrations. Its only drastic climate changes that result in migration. Moreover, it is nowhere mentioned that Climate is "primary" cause of migration.

Crick

"Drastic shifts in climate always result in migrations" can also be rephrased as "Population would be stable only if there is no Shift in Climate conditions" which essentially is the 'C' option.

+1 C

drastic climate change ---> migration
contra-positive: no migration ---> no drastic climate change [fairly stable climate]

hence, C

C

Drastic shifts in climate always result in migrations

A ) not mentioned abt “ONLY” part
B ) all shift is not mentioned
C ) so if case is not false then it has to be true .. by that logic C has to be the answer
D ) nope, as statement says abt stable climate
E ) not mentioned

(A) Climate is the primary cause of migration It is.
(B) All shifts in climate produce a net gain in human progress That's true as well.
(C) A population remains settles only where the climate is fairly stable. This looks true as well
(D) Populations settle in every place where human industry can be established Definitely Not true. Passage talks about factors contributing.
(E) Every migration is accompanied by rapid advances in civilization - No. Migration brings in the ideas necessary for advances.
So now between A,B and C: A is true but then Geology also determines the cause so A is gone. B is true but All shifts is extreme plus mentioning that it produces a net gain is a bit out of context. I mean migration also brings net reduction for some other place. So B is out too.
C is good. I can clearly sense that if climate is stable people won't migrate.

IMO C

By process of elimination-
A- not climate but drastic change in climate.
B- How can we be so sure that there will be net gain
D- Climate and geology might be okay for a human industry, but will population settle in every place?
E- As per passage- Ideas are necessary for advancement, but will they bring advancement(After migration)? Not necessary.

Can we say that the wrd 'Fairly'in option 'Ç' makes all the difference here?
Cz the premise says that ''DRASTIC' climate change leads to migration and 'FAIRLY STABLE' includes mild climate changes as well...

Had it been only 'STABLE', this option would not have been correct as then we would be saying that the population will stay if the climate is stable and will migrate even if there is a slight climate change.

AM i making sense?

The correct answer is option C.

Lets first understand the passage:

- Sociologist:
> Climate, geology determine the location where human industry can be established
> Drastic shifts in climate lead to migrations
> Migrations lead to intermingling of ideas
> Intermingling of ideas is necessary for rapid advances in civilisation

Question: The sociologist’s statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?
i.e. find what can be logically inferred from the passage.

Lets look at the answer choices:

(A) Climate is the primary cause of migration
Not necessary. We can be sure that a drastic (extreme) shift in climate leads to migration. But we cannot be sure that this is the primary cause - it could be one of many other reasons, some of which being even stronger reasons.

A leads to B does not imply A is the primary cause of B, there could be some other main cause.

(B) All shifts in climate produce a net gain in human progress
Incorrect. Only a drastic shift in climate leads to migrations leading to intermingling of ideas. And intermingling of ideas are necessary for advances/progress does not imply that intermingling of ideas will definitely lead to progress in all cases.

So 2 reasons to reject this option:
1. All shifts - incorrect. We can only infer about a drastic shift
2. A is necessary for B - does not mean that if A happens, B will definitely happen. Thus, intermingling of ideas is necessary for progress, yes, but that does not mean that intermingling of ideas will necessarily lead to progress.

(C) A population remains settles only where the climate is fairly stable.
Correct. Given that
Drastic shift in climate (i.e. unstable climate) leads to migrations i.e. population not settling somewhere, then we can infer that a population can settle only where climate is fairly stable. If climate is unstable, then the population will migrate i.e. not settle.

(D) Populations settle in every place where human industry can be established
Incorrect. All we can infer from the passage is that industry can be established in places where, thanks to migration, intermingling of ideas has happened (as the new population mingles with the old).
Populations can settle anywhere - even at a place with stable climate, and no migration/intermingling of ideas. In such a place, the population will be settled, but they will not make much progress as a civilisation (no setting up of human industry). Hence, option D is incorrect.

(E) Every migration is accompanied by rapid advances in civilization
Not necessarily true.
Migration leads to intermingling of ideas. As discussed above, intermingling of ideas are necessary for advances/progress does not imply that intermingling of ideas will definitely lead to progress in all cases.

A is necessary for B - does not mean that if A happens, B will definitely happen. Thus, Migration, leading to intermingling of ideas is necessary for progress, yes, but that does not mean that it will necessarily lead to progress in every case.


Cheers!

Sociologist: Climate and geology determine where human industry can be established. Drastic shifts in climate always result in migrations, and migrations bring about the intermingling of ideas necessary for rapid advances in civilization.

Asked: The sociologist’s statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) Climate is the primary cause of migration
change in climate is the cause and not climate for migration. word primary is incorrect.
(B) All shifts in climate produce a net gain in human progress
(C) A population remains settles only where the climate is fairly stable.
(D) Populations settle in every place where human industry can be established
(E) Every migration is accompanied by rapid advances in civilization

IMO C

This is an infer question and I follow the must be true approach.
So, in my opinion, the author never mentions that climate is the Primary cause of migration. A will be out.
The intermingling of ideas is necessary for rapid advances but doesn't imply that they will always achieve those advances. B, E will be out.
We are not told about where the human industry can be established. D will be out.
Option C must be true according to the argument as it mentions that shifts in climate result in migrations. C is the answer

Feel free to award me kudos if you like the explanation.

Sociologist: Climate and geology determine where human industry can be established. Drastic shifts in climate always result in migrations, and migrations bring about the intermingling of ideas necessary for rapid advances in civilization.

The sociologist’s statements, if true, most strongly support which one of the following?

(A) Climate is the primary cause of migration - WRONG. Can be any other factor also.
(B) All shifts in climate produce a net gain in human progress - WRONG. Two parameters that may be true at once or not, together as well.
(C) A population remains settles only where the climate is fairly stable.
(D) Populations settle in every place where human industry can be established - WRONG. Can't be sure about every place when industry is a factor considered.
(E) Every migration is accompanied by rapid advances in civilization - WRONG. Not sure about every migration.

Every option has extreme word but which one is relatively better. The one is better is our answer.
For me it was between C and D. Between them C is better for climate being fairly stable.

Answer C.

(C) A population remains settles only where the climate is fairly stable.

I would like to respectfully disagree with the OA. I feel all the answers are incorrect. For option C, here's my take.

Argument says -
Drastic changes in climate always results in XYZ.....We dont know anything about "not-drastic" changes. It may/may lead to migrations.

Also, the argument doesn't say that only drastic changes lead to migrations. It could very well be that the climate is stable but some random factors cause migration. We cannot pin down with certainty that the population will not migrate (or remain settled) if the climate is stable.

Please correct me if my approach is wrong. Thank you

Another question I have is for such question stems as " most strongly support", should I be looking for mere support or a must-be-true statement? I ask this because if it's mere support than I can live with option C, but if it's a must-be-true statement, then I feel option C wouldn't/shouldn't qualify.

AndrewN KarishmaB

In this case, it appears that the question-writer is considering climate that does not go through drastic changes "fairly stable."

While it's true that climate that has non-drastic changes may be considered not fairly stable, if we just go with what appears to be the question-writer's position, we can get this question correct, and getting it correct is our goal.


This is not an issue.

After all, choice (C) is not saying that a population always remains settled if in an area where the climate is stable. Rather, choice (C) says only that "population remains settled only where the climate is fairly stable." In other words, (C) communicates that fairly stable climate is a condition NECESSARY for a population to remain settled but not SUFFICIENT for a population to remain settled.


When the question stem asks which choice the passage "most strongly supports" or is "most strongly supported by" the passage, the question is not an Inference question. It's a Conclusion question.

In a Conclusion question, the correct answer must be supported by, in other words must logically follow from, the statements in the passage, but it is not necessary for the correct answer to be something that must be true if the statements in the passage are true.

(C) is the most appropriate option and not because we don't have any other choice. It says 'fairly stable' as in no drastic changes. Some changes here and there are fine but overall we would say that the climate is stable. The test writer will convey his intent through his choice of words and you must learn to pick those up.

He says: Drastic shifts in climate always result in migrations.

So we know that drastic shifts are sufficient to cause migration. They will cause emigration.
So then when may there be no migration? Only when there are no drastic shifts (when it is fairly stable). Does it mean that if the climate is fairly stable, migrations will certainly not happen. No, it doesn't. They could happen for other reasons, correct.

But here is what (C) says: A population remains settled only where the climate is fairly stable.

It uses "only where" - the marker for necessary condition.

It says that fairly stable climate is necessary for no migrations and that is what we concluded too. We said that the climate condition is necessary. It may not be sufficient to lead to no migration, and we get that.

Hence (C) is in line with the argument.

Also, "most strongly supports" means provides maximum support but the support may not be perfect. So I wouldn't worry about ensuring that the option must be true. I would just look for one which makes sense given the premises.