#2- Author's Perspective, Must Be True, Concept Reference

[avengingangel]

Hello - why is C an inferior answer choice? Isn't that exactly what lines 1-9 are saying? Is it because that's a conditional statement in those lines, it doesn't mean that'll necesarily be the case?

More importantly, why is D the best answer choice here? I find 2 problems wrong with it. 1) The passage never says anything about "high" standard of living, it just says "all would enjoy standards of living equivalent to those of present-day industrial democracies." that doesn't have to mean high. and 2) According to the passage, implementing an ideal industrial ecosystem (IIE) doesn't mean zero depletion of natural resources (taking it to mean of the many n. res. out there, none of them will be depleted), it just states "Materials...would not be depleted any more than are materials in a biological ecosystem..." (lines 29-31). And even if a bio. ecosystem had zero depletion of materials AND nat. resources, the passage is still talking about the materials involved in an IEE, not the nat. resources. Moreover, in lines 46-48, "The IEE, in which there is an economically viable role for every product of a manufacturing process..." the passage is still not talking about natural resources!

Thanks !!!!

[Adam Tyson]

C is inferior for the reason you cited, angel: the passage makes a conditional claim, not an absolute claim.

D may be imperfect, but it's pretty good. You're right about "high" not being in the passage, although it does talk about the standard of living in industrial democracies, and later talks about developing countries, so that does imply that the standards in question are at least relatively high. Not perfect, but we don't ever need perfect on this test.

The description of biological ecosystems is of a closed system - it reminds me a lot of Mufasa's explanation of the circle of life to Simba, actually, in which nothing is ever truly lost. The author uses that as an analogy and suggests that an ideal industrial ecosystem, while unattainable using current technology, would likewise be a closed system. Also, the author began the passage by making the connection between natural resources and the materials used in industrial production. Once the industrial ecosystem becomes an ideal closed system, it should no longer need input of additional natural resources, because it will just keep finding ways to reuse the materials already in the system. Even if it needs some additional inputs, the author suggests that we could achieve a level of sustainability that would prevent us from running out of (depleting) any natural resources.

D isn't perfect, like I said, but since all you need it to be is better than the other four answers, it's a winner by a long margin. If you aren't sure about that, consider whether there is any support for the author agreeing with any of the other four answers. I don't think you'll find as much support for any of them as you can find for D, and that's all that matters.

Keep pounding, you'll get there!

[ashpine17]

isn't "all" too much? even ifit is softened by "could"

[ashpine17]

also need help with e

i think the author would disagree that stuff would run out by 2030 because he states in thef first paragraph that stuff wouldn't run out until around a decade later

[Luke Haqq]

Hi ashpine17!

Regarding "all" in answer choice (D), that language isn't too strong. Answer choice (D) states, "All countries could enjoy a high standard of living without depleting natural resources if industrialized and developing countries implemented an ideal industrial ecosystem." This is specifically referring to what the author describes as an "ideal" industrial ecosystem. The author explains that "Materials in an ideal industrial ecosystem would not be depleted any more than are materials in a biological ecosystem" (lines 29-31), which the author goes on to indicate is sustainable (e.g., plants feed herbivores, which feed carnivores, which provide food for plants). If all countries implemented such an ideal industrial system, the author argues that they'd all be adopting sustainable industrial ecosystems.

Regarding (E), it does indeed seem that the author would disagree with that answer choice. In the first paragraph, author is making a claim about how long resources would last for 10 billion people (a decade or less), and the author also notes that's what the population is expected to be by 2030. One might understand (E)'s mention of being "in serious danger of depletion by the year 2030" to refer to resources being depleted by 2030, or it also might be interpreted to refer to danger rising to a serious level (i.e. becoming an imminent danger) by 2030--and being depleted within a decade of that date. Under either of those interpretations, the author wouldn't agree that the standard of living must be reduced, because the author believes that, even if the ideal, sustainable industrial ecosystem isn't entirely attainable yet, industrialized and developing nations can adopt technologies and practices that are more sustainable than the present (see lines 50 on). The claim in the first paragraph that living standards couldn't be maintained indefinitely is based on present patterns of using resources, which are comparatively less sustainable than the technologies and practices that the author indicates are feasible to adopt in the last paragraph.