#9 - Scientific and technological discoveries have

[pacer]

I am having trouble understanding the stimulus. Can you please go over it?

here is my take on it:

X is good. Predictions about X are wrong.

This implies that predictions stated that X is bad. (wouldn't this be what the author is assuming? - for the predictions to be untrustworthy, they would have to have stated that that X is bad)

I am confused. Please explain. Thanks!

[Nicholas Bruno]

Hi Pacer,

I'll first explain the stimulus then explain why C is correct.

Scientific and technological discoveries have considerable effects on the development of any society.

This basically is saying that scientific discoveries impact the development of society. This is not saying that the development is good or bad just that discoveries impact development.

It follows that predictions of the future condition of societies in which scientific and technological discovery is particularly frequent are particularly untrustworthy.

This sentences says that predictions of future conditions are untrustworthy.

The uncommon variables/missing links here are the "untrustworthy" in the conclusion and the "considerable effects on society" in the premise. Thus, the right answer choice will have to have both.

C has both: C says forecasts of the effects of discoveries are not reliable (i.e. are not trustworthy). This connects the premises and conclusion to make that stimulus make sense.

I hope that helps!

[pacer]

Can you explain the "or" in the answer choice?

Based on this answer choice it seems that there is a contradiction in the stimulus between what the two sentences are saying.

[Adam Tyson]

If the sci/tech developments have impacts, that means they bring about changes. The author is saying that when you have a society that has a lot of those developments (and hence a lot of those changes), you can't trust predictions about where those societies are going. Without knowing what new sci/tech thing is going to come along and change things, you just can't guess what the future holds, right?

The author is making an assumption that you EITHER can't predict what those sci/tech developments will be (we're going to make cars that run on mashed apricots? seriously?) OR, even if you can do that (yup, apricot cars are just around the corner my friend), you won't be able to predict what changes will come about as a result of those developments (what do you mean Australia is going to invade Turkey in order to take over their apricot production and become the world's most important energy producer?! Well, I never saw that coming!)

Think of the negation of this answer choice - what if you CAN accurately predict the developments and their consequences? What would that do to the conclusion that you can't trust those predictions? Pretty much wreck it, right? That's the glory of the assumption negation technique.

To answer your question more directly, the function of the "or" is to cover the whole spectrum of the assumption - either you can't predict the development or you can't predict the impact, or both.

Hope that helps!

[plac23]

Hello
Although I made this right, the expression here still confuses me. Do you agree that : If we omit the first sentence, the answer choice will still be correct?
It is hard to find out any link between the first sentence and the second one.
Thank you very much.

[Adam Tyson]

Without the first sentence, plac23, there's no argument here, but they still could have asked about what the claim assumes, and I think the correct answer would still be correct in that case. The link between them is that the first sentence is the premise and the second is the conclusion; the answer is the thing that seems to be missing between the two, especially regarding the effects. Why does the author think predictions about the effects of these changes are particularly untrustworthy? Because the effects are significant. Not only can we not predict the technologies, we also cannot predict their effects.