#8 - Environmentalist: When bacteria degrade household

[hassan66]

Would answer choice E be correct if this were a justify question or strengthen question (at its strongest)?

[Adam Tyson]

I don't think it would, hasan66, because in its conditional form we still can't know that it ever actually happens. IF those toxic vapors form, then some humans are harmed - that doesn't prove that any of those vapors ever actually DO form in landfills, or that they would do so in a landfill converted to a park, and we don't know if bacteria are present. So I would say no, that is not a justify answer, and if it strengthens it only does so very little.

[Leela]

Correct, lilmisssunshine! Without knowing about the bacteria issue, we can't know that putting cleaning supplies into landfills is dangerous! The author doesn't have to assume that all vapors from cleaning products are dangerous, but only that some of them are (the toxic ones). It's the bacteria that guarantee the toxic vapors, and so that's what's missing. Good work!

I'm confused. Why do we need to know specifically about the bacteria in an assumption answer? Wouldn't that be more characteristic of a justify answer?

[Brook Miscoski]

Leela,

The reason that we need to know whether there are bacteria present is that the stimulus is based on the idea that bacteria break down the cleaning supplies into harmful vapors, but the stimulus doesn't show that the bacteria are present. Thus, we must fill in the gap. Answer choice (A) fills in the gap by providing that the bacteria are present.

It's inconsequential that the choice may also justify the argument, since the argument fails without (A). Let's negate (A):

There are no landfills where bacteria degrade household cleaning products.

Well, if that's the case, the Environmentalist's concern about the vapors that would result from those bacteria seems a little silly, right? So (A) is required.

[valegria]

I'm a bit confused about why A is correct. I was tempted and it sounded right to me but the reason I didn't pick it was because it looked out of order. Since it's a Necessary Assumption, wouldn't the order of it have to be Premise --> Conclusion, for the dangling terms?
I was looking for an answer choice that had first something from the premise and connected it with the new term from the conclusion. I identified the new term as "converting landfills into public parks"
I would've picked A if the wording was switched to "bacteria that degrade household cleaning products (Premise) are found in at least some landfills that have been converted into public parks (Conclusion).
Please help me understand this.

[Robert Carroll]

valegria,

What you wanted answer choice (A) to say is what it does say! "Some" statements are completely reversible.

A B

is identical in meaning to

B A

There is no difference between what the answer said and what you were looking for.

Robert Carroll

[lsatowl]

Hi, I still don't fully understand why A is the correct answer.

A states that there are bacteria that degrade household cleaning products present in at least some landfills that have been converted to parks. But what if the cleaning products themselves aren't present (meaning the toxic vapors won't form)? I talked myself out of this response because I convinced myself that the bacteria could be present (they could be general bacteria that exist in the world no matter what) but they wouldn't be harmful to human health because the other factor necessary to produce toxic vapors, i.e. the cleaning products / what the bacteria feed on, isn't present.

Is this an unreasonable question to ask of a response / am I going too far?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi lsatowl!

It could be helpful to address why (A) is correct by applying the Assumption Negation technique. Negated, that answer choice would be "In [no] landfills that have been converted into public parks there are bacteria that degrade household cleaning products."

If that were true, it'd make the argument fall apart. If no landfills have the bacteria that release the toxins, then the premises no longer support the conclusion that "converting landfills into public parks is damaging human health." This is true regardless of whether cleaning products are present or not.