LR Problem Set #2, Q 133

[smile22]

I am having trouble with question #133 that appears in the LR Problem Set #2 packet. I know from the question stem that this question is asking us to weaken the statement that "we will never run out of important natural resources since new technologies constantly replace old ones".

I was able to eliminate answers A and C, but I am having trouble understanding why answer E is correct. Is it because the ability of not running out of natural resources is dependant on the fact that new technologies prevent this from happening? Since substances like clean air and clear water are unaffected by technological change and can't be "saved" by technology when their supply runs low, they CAN run out contrary to what the conclusion in the stimulus is saying?

[BethRibet]

Hi Smile,

Thanks for the question.

The assumption in this stimulus is that our central or only need for natural resources involves their use in the production of products like arrowheads and masts, or in services like having a mule transport items. If this assumption were correct, then as long as the product or service is replaceable, the resource shortage does not necessarily pose a problem, and then the conclusion follows. But this assumption is pretty big! We also need resources, like air and water, to simply stay alive. At least thus far in human experience, we haven't had some technological change that has allowed us to breathe methane and drink petroleum, in order to live instead. The need for these resources is pretty likely to be constant, and the premises provided don't contradict that likelihood.

Answer choice E plays up that flaw, and helps expose the assumption, by emphasizing that unlike flint or wood or mules, the need for water and air does not change. If E is correct, then the conclusion, that we will never run out of resources, is no longer as well supported, and the argument is weakened.

Let us know if this doesn't help!

Good luck,
Beth

[smile22]

Thank you!