#17 - To establish a human colony on Mars would involve assembling

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[BMM2021]

Hi,

I'm hoping to understand why B is wrong here - I actually didn't even read E because B appeared to be a valid defender type assumption and I was nearing the end of the section (my mistake). I understand why E is correct, but I don't know what I'm overlooking regarding B.

When negating answer B, the choice would state that the cost of transporting basic materials through space is/may be expected to decrease in the near future, which would appear to weaken the conclusion that "it will not be economically feasible to to colonize Mars."

The main issue I can see with B, when it's negated, is that a near-term decrease in shipping costs may still not render colonization of Mars financially viable, whereas the negation of E would fully undermine the argument. Is this the right way to think about these two answers?

Thanks,
Brian

[Adam Tyson]

You got it, Brian! We need the negation to do more than weaken the argument - we need it to destroy the argument! I like to use an analogy for this one:

There is a house in my neighborhood for sale for $3 million. That is way over my budget, so I cannot even consider buying that house.

Do I have to assume the price will not come down? What if the price does come down? Well, if it comes down to $2 million (a huge drop in price), it could still be way over my meager budget. I might only be able to afford a home that sells for a fraction of that price!

So decreasing costs aren't enough to destroy the argument, not without knowing more. Will the costs decrease to a point where they actually become economically viable? That's what I would need to know. The argument assumes that the costs will not soon decrease substantially enough to make the job affordable.

[Bruin96]

[quote="Adam Tyson"]You got it, Brian! We need the negation to do more than weaken the argument - we need it to destroy the argument! I like to use an analogy for this one:

There is a house in my neighborhood for sale for $3 million. That is way over my budget, so I cannot even consider buying that house.

Do I have to assume the price will not come down? What if the price does come down? Well, if it comes down to $2 million (a huge drop in price), it could still be way over my meager budget. I might only be able to afford a home that sells for a fraction of that price!

So decreasing costs aren't enough to destroy the argument, not without knowing more. Will the costs decrease to a point where they actually become economically viable? That's what I would need to know. The argument assumes that the costs will not soon decrease substantially enough to make the job affordable.[/quote]


Are A and C wrong because they mention Earth and this is not something we're given?

[Adam Tyson]

The short answer is yes, Bruin96 - the author didn't have to make any assumptions about Earth to make this argument work. They only had to assume that the materials needed to be transported through space from somewhere other than Mars. Maybe from Earth, but also maybe from the moon, or from some asteroids, or from Mercury, or from a space station, etc.

[alacantaramac]

Hi powerscore,


I was wondering if my take on this question is coherent

The reason why E is the correct answer is that the author's single main premise for his conclusion is: high cost of transportation.
Borrowing from the idea that Assumption Q are cousins of MBT Q, we cannot go out of the scope of the stimulus and make assumptions about the benefits, since the author's conclusion is about economic feasibility, not its profitability (which, if it were the case, D would be the necessary assumption).
The choice of word 'feasible' would limit the scope of an answer to costs, since feasibility has an innate subjective aspect. Even if there were to be future benefit, the author can write that objection off by claiming that the immediate cost renders it 'unfeasible' by his books.

In part, I was tripped up by D due to my misunderstanding of the concept of economic feasibility.

We can also flip the argument as diagrams,
P: establish --> materials
C: cost transport --> establish x

contrapos of P: materials x --> establish x

answer: cost transport = materials x
(link them together)


Another question I would like to mention along with this Q is June 1997 LR1 14
This question, on the other hand, makes an argument about the level of pollution *decreasing*, from evidence that *fewer* people commute using cars during the recession.
The quantitative indicator decrease/increase calls for a necessary assumption that there is not enough increase to hinder its decrease.


I guess my conclusion regarding these two questions is that wording matters...?

[Adam Tyson]

Coherent and accurate, alacantaramac! And you're absolutely correct that words matter. They are, after all, the only thing we have to work with this on this test, and are thus the primary source of the tricks and traps the test authors lay for us, both in making wrong answers look attractive and in disguising good answers with confusing language.