#16- Max: Although doing so would be very costly, humans

[jralvendia]

After considering the question and argument I was down to 2 contenders A and D while I see why A is correct I do not see why D is incorrect.

My logic to D and its implication to the question is as follows: the conclusion states -

Thus, such colonies will almost certainly be built and severe overcrowding on Earth relieved.

D- It overlooks the possibility that colonies on the Moon might themselves quickly become overcrowded.

AC is implying to me that if the moon becomes overcrowded the benefits of settling the moon (relieving severe overcrowding on earth) will be void, therefore the conclusion overlooks this possibility is a flaw.

I could see that possibly D is describing something that would weaken the argument but not necessarily have to be a flaw in the authors argument, if that is the case, I guess it would help explain why D is wrong, but isn’t the portion in the author’s conclusion about relieving the overcrowding just as important as the portion claiming they will build colonies?

Further explanation would be appreciated, thanks!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi jralvendia!

Note that the conclusion in the stimulus is specifically about severe overcrowding "on Earth" being relieved. Even if the moon too might become overcrowded, that doesn't really point out a flaw or even weaken this conclusion--because the conclusion is just about overcrowding on Earth.

[Capetowner]

I don't think I would go so far as to say that answer B is "pretty good," chiickenx. Even if we add in our own assumptions about overcrowding getting very severe, the author still doesn't need to assume that moon colonies are the only solution. Perhaps extreme population control measures, like forced sterilization of 90% of the population, or a "Logan's Run" approach of killing everyone over the age of 30, might also do the trick? The issue with answer B is that the author never needs to rely on moon colonies as the ONLY solution. It's just "the incentive to do it is growing, so eventually we will do it."

The only required assumption is that at some point the incentive will be strong enough to overcome all potential objections to doing it. It's growing, sure, but will it grow enough to make us decide to actually do it? For the past 4 years or so, I have felt a growing desire to leave the United States and move to a remote cabin in the Northwest Territories, never to return. Does that mean that I will definitely do that someday? Only if we assume that the reasons for leaving will reach a tipping point where they completely outweigh the reasons for staying where I am.

Answer B isn't "pretty good." In fact, it's downright awful. Don't help it! The right answer never needs any help!

Why is "almost certainly" not a matter of contention for the right answer if it allows for answer A to be wrong. "Sufficiently" is stronger than "almost certainly" and this is a MSS

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Capetowner,

Just to be clear, this is a Flaw question, so you are looking for a description of the flaw that occurs in the reasoning of the argument.

The flaw in this argument is that the argument makes an unwarranted (i.e. bad) assumption that the growing economic incentives to construct a colony on the Moon will eventually outweigh the very high costs of such a project. This is unwarranted because no specific reasons are given for making this assumption. For all we know, the economic incentives will never reach the point that they outweigh the very high costs of such a project, in which case the project will not likely be undertaken.

The words "takes for granted" in Answer A are synonymous with "assumes," and Answer A is describing that unwarranted assumption that the argument is making, which is the flaw in this argument. As Nikki describes in his earlier posts (Posts #13 and 15), you could use the Assumption Negation Technique on Answer A to confirm that it is correct.

Those posts can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=537&t=628&start=10

Try not to get tripped up by the use of the word "sufficiently" in Answer A. Here it simply means that the economic incentives will grow enough to outweigh the costs of undertaking the project. Even though the conclusion uses the more modest/less absolute wording "almost certainly," the argument does assume that the benefits will eventually outweigh the costs. Otherwise, the conclusion that "such colonies will almost certainly be built" is unsupported.