#3 - Societies in which value is measured

[emilysnoddon]

Hello,

I'm having trouble understanding why the answer is D, opposed to E.

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Hi Emily,

Thanks for your question. Generally speaking, we need a bit more input from you before we delve into a discussion of a particular LR question. Ultimately, it won't be us who are taking the test; it's you! Our goal is to help you cultivate the analytical ability to approach these questions on your own, which is why you need to help us help you first.

Here's what I'd like you to do:

• 1. Describe your approach to the stimulus. Did you understand the argument, if any, from a structural standpoint? What is the conclusion, and what evidence is the author using in support of that conclusion?
  
  2. Did you prephrase an answer to the question in the stem? If so, what was your prephrase?
  
  3. What exactly made the two answer choices you have listed particularly attractive? Did you use any question type-specific test (e.g. Assumption Negation Technique) to differentiate between them?

Thanks,

Stephanie

[1800-HELPME]

Hello, after rereading the question, I see why B is right. But I'm having trouble seeing why the answer choice I chose (A) was wrong.

I picked A because when I applied the negation test to it: It will NOT eventually be possible to breed strains of bananas that are resistant to Sigatoka disease, it seemed that it would attack the conclusion that most of the world's banana crop is not seriously threatened by the Sigatoka disease.

If it's not possible to ever protect bananas from the disease, then wouldn't the conclusion fall apart?

And this is my understanding of why B is right:

B negated would say: Large plantations produce FEW(?) or NONE of the world's bananas.

If this were the case, would the world's banana crop seriously be threatened by the disease because the fungicides only turn out to be used on the minority of banana crops, while the small banana groves (the majority of banana crops) won't be using fungicides, which therefore makes the conclusion fall apart?

Thanks in advance

[1800-HELPME]

Hello,

I'm having trouble understanding why the answer is D, opposed to E.

The answer's actually B!

[Luke Haqq]

Happy to help on this one!

As I understood (A), it would actually strengthen the conclusion. If it will eventually be possible to breed strains of bananas that are resistant to Sigatoka disease, this reinforces the conclusion that Sigatoka is not putting the world's banana crop in peril.

If you use the Assumption Negation technique, remember that you want to think about whether the whole argument (rather than just the conclusion) falls apart--that is, it requires looking to the premises used to support the conclusion.

In this case, (B) reveals an assumption made about where the bananas of the "world's banana crop" come from. The stimulus mentions that Sigatoka disease can be controlled with fungicides, but fungicide can only be used safely on large plantations. It doesn't explicitly state that the world's banana crop comes from these large plantations.

Negating "Large plantations produce most or all of the world's bananas," we would have "Large plantations DO NOT produce most or all of the world's bananas." Applying the Assumption Negation technique, the conclusion would no longer follow from the premises. Rather, if that negation were true, then most or all of the world's bananas come from smaller plantations--which fungicides can't be used on--which would suggest that the world's banana crop is seriously threatened by Sigatoka disease.