- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Apr 14, 2016 2:18 pm
#23060
Complete Question Explanation.
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (A)
The stimulus explains that slash-and-burn farming quickly depletes nutrients, so new land must be cleared for agriculture. The stimulus concludes that since most farming in the tropics is slash-and-burn, forests in the tropics will be permanently eradicated.
The logic of the stimulus is that farmers will continually have to find new areas to slash-and-burn, so they will get around to the whole forest eventually. That reasoning isn't terrible, but concluding that the forests will be permanently eradicated involves the critical but somewhat questionable assumption that the forest cannot grow back. Since you are asked for the necessary assumption, you need to focus on that critical assumption.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The logic that the forests will be eradicated because each portion of the forest will eventually have been slashed and burned involves the assumption that the forests cannot grow back.
Answer choice (B): Since the stimulus does not concern whether other methods of agriculture are superior or preferable, it is irrelevant whether some methods are less destructive. This choice is irrelevant and incorrect. Regardless of the destructive nature of other methods, slash-and-burn can be destructive.
Answer choice (C): The stimulus states that the nutrients leach out of the soil once the forests are burned, which does not mean that the stimulus assumes the forest areas are naturally deficient in certain nutrients. In any case, you are asked for the assumption that is necessary to support the idea that the forests will be eradicated. The specifics of why the soil becomes deficient do not necessarily matter.
Answer choice (D): The stimulus seems to be geared toward the idea that slash-and-burn agriculture is not suitable for the tropics, since the technique eradicates forests. Since this choice can be reasonably interpreted as opposing the conclusion, it is unlikely that this choice represents a necessary assumption, so you can eliminate it without much further evaluation.
Answer choice (E): The fact that the slash-and-burn technique produces ample fertilizer for a few years is not good reason to believe that the technique produces more bountiful crops that first year. Furthermore, this assumption does not speak to the conclusion, so is unlikely to be necessary.
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (A)
The stimulus explains that slash-and-burn farming quickly depletes nutrients, so new land must be cleared for agriculture. The stimulus concludes that since most farming in the tropics is slash-and-burn, forests in the tropics will be permanently eradicated.
The logic of the stimulus is that farmers will continually have to find new areas to slash-and-burn, so they will get around to the whole forest eventually. That reasoning isn't terrible, but concluding that the forests will be permanently eradicated involves the critical but somewhat questionable assumption that the forest cannot grow back. Since you are asked for the necessary assumption, you need to focus on that critical assumption.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The logic that the forests will be eradicated because each portion of the forest will eventually have been slashed and burned involves the assumption that the forests cannot grow back.
Answer choice (B): Since the stimulus does not concern whether other methods of agriculture are superior or preferable, it is irrelevant whether some methods are less destructive. This choice is irrelevant and incorrect. Regardless of the destructive nature of other methods, slash-and-burn can be destructive.
Answer choice (C): The stimulus states that the nutrients leach out of the soil once the forests are burned, which does not mean that the stimulus assumes the forest areas are naturally deficient in certain nutrients. In any case, you are asked for the assumption that is necessary to support the idea that the forests will be eradicated. The specifics of why the soil becomes deficient do not necessarily matter.
Answer choice (D): The stimulus seems to be geared toward the idea that slash-and-burn agriculture is not suitable for the tropics, since the technique eradicates forests. Since this choice can be reasonably interpreted as opposing the conclusion, it is unlikely that this choice represents a necessary assumption, so you can eliminate it without much further evaluation.
Answer choice (E): The fact that the slash-and-burn technique produces ample fertilizer for a few years is not good reason to believe that the technique produces more bountiful crops that first year. Furthermore, this assumption does not speak to the conclusion, so is unlikely to be necessary.