#18 - The use of space-based satellites to study

[Jeff Wren]

Hi dshen and Mordecai,

First, if you haven't done so already, I'd recommend reading the earlier answers in this forum post, as you may find them helpful. Even though they may not specifically focus on Answer B, understanding the stimulus and why Answer A is correct should also help in eliminating Answer B.

The stimulus describes some benefits to using space-based satellites to study the Earth's environment and why environmentalists like them. The stimulus then states that the environmentalists "fail to consider" possible negative impacts that the space-based satellites may have on the Earth's environment, negatives that may even warrant stopping the use of the space-based satellites.

Basically, the stimulus is explaining why the environmentalists are "failing to consider" (i.e. ignoring) the possible negatives of using a technology because they like the positives of using it. This is perfectly captured in Answer A, although the idea is broadened out to "consequences of actions" and "activities" rather than specifically mentioning using space-based satellites, which is to be expected in Principle questions.

Mordecai, while you are correct to note the use of "may" in the stimulus and the uncertainty that it conveys, you may be missing a bigger problem with Answer B.

The gist of the stimulus is that the negative consequences of using space-based satellites may actually outweigh the benefits. When the stimulus states that the "damage could be serious enough to warrant discontinuing spaceflight," this indicates that the damage may outweigh the benefits. (Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to discontinue spaceflight if the benefits outweigh the negatives.)

Answer B states that "a negative consequence of an activity may be outweighed by its great positive consequences" (my emphasis). This is suggesting that the benefits may outweigh the negatives, which is actually the opposite of what the stimulus is arguing. The stimulus is arguing that the environmentalists may be ignoring the negative consequences even though those negative consequences may outweigh the benefits of using space-based satellites. In other words, the environmentalists are so happy to have the technology that lets them better track and predict the environmental damage that they've been blinded to the negative environmental effects of the technology itself.

[Amber Thomas]

Hi Mordecai!

You make a good point about Answer Choice B-- just because spacecraft may damage the ozone layer, and this damage could be serious enough to discontinue spaceflight doesn't mean that this is a guarantee. However, I believe the more important reason that Answer Choice B is wrong is because it isn't within the scope of what is being asked.

Our stimulus tells us that satellites may be able to help prevent ecological disasters, and as a result of this, environmentalists don't consider the potential environmental consequences of launching said satellites. Our focus needs to be on why these environmentalists fail to consider the potential environmentally damaging effects of launching satellites into the atmosphere.

Answer Choice B is not correct for the following reason: our stimulus doesn't say "it is no wonder environmentalists are okay with the potentially environmentally damaging effects of launching satellites because of the ultimately positive impact that they have on the environment." The stimulus says "it is no wonder that environmentalists fail to consider... that spacecraft may damage the ozone layer." Answer Choice B says that negative consequences can be outweighed by greater positive consequences. However, according to our stimulus, the environmentalists aren't even considering the potential negative consequences. Thus, this makes Answer Choice A our correct answer, because it explains why the environmentalists are failing to consider the potential negative environmental consequences of launching satellites into the atmosphere.

I hope this helps!

[saiffshaikhh@gmail.com]

I chose E, but I can see why A, is the better choice. Is E wrong because it makes an unwarranted assumption about the consequences of employing new tech?

[charter747]

I chose D but now see why A is better. The stimulus says, "to study environmental conditions on Earth". D says "attempts to solve problems sometimes make them worse". The problem solved by satellites is studying "environmental problems on Earth". The things that are made worse deal with space: "ozone layer" and "discontinuing space flight".

Yes?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi saiffshaikhh,

First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading the earlier answers in this forum post, as you may find them helpful.

They can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=599&t=6137

The question asks "the reasoning above most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?" (my emphasis). To correctly answer this question, you must first analyze the reasoning underlying the argument in the stimulus and distinguish the underlying reasoning from the specific topic/subject of the argument, similar to a Method of Reasoning question.

While the argument is about the pros and cons of using space-based satellites to study environmental conditions, this is the topic/subject of the argument, not the reasoning. The underlying reasoning has nothing to do with technology. If this had been a Parallel Reasoning question, the correct answer wouldn't need to mention technology at all (and most likely would not). Instead what would be paralleled is the idea of a group of people ignoring the possible negatives of some "thing" (behavior, thing, action, etc.) because that "thing" has some benefits that they really like. This idea is expressed in the principle stated in Answer A.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi charter,

Please see Robert's earlier post (Post #2) on why Answer D is incorrect.

It can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=599&t=6137

The distinction between Earth and space is not the reason why Answer D is incorrect. The ozone layer would still be considered part of Earth's atmosphere and would certainly be relevant to Earth's environmental condition.