#24 - Ecologists predict that the incidence of malaria will

[Oakenshield]

Hi everyone,
Several questions about the stimulus.
1. It says " the use of pesticides is known to contribute to global warming". Does it mean "If pesticides used --> global warming"? Or just "Pesticides play a part in global warming but they are insufficient to result in global warming"?
2. I think there is a flaw in the stimulus. We only know the use of pesticides is known to contribute to global warming, but we are not told that pesticides have been used or will be used, so it goes too far to conclude that we will see an increase. Am I right?
Thanks in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

Hey Oak, thanks for asking. I'll say you are in the right ballpark, but maybe slightly in foul territory here. Let me see if I can help.

First, as to the nature of the claim about pesticides contributing to global warming, that language (contributes) is causal, not conditional. Stay away from "if...then" analyses when dealing with causal claims, because you might end up going down a dark path and get lost. Causal arguments should be dealt with in terms of things like alternate causes, reversed cause and effect, data attacks, correlation issues, etc., rather than talking about what is sufficient and necessary.

This stimulus tells us that pesticides contribute to global warming. Taken at face value, that means they cause global warming (although the author, in using "contributes", allows for the possibility that other factors may also be involved in that causal relationship). It's probably fair to say that, if that is true, the use of pesticides will probably increase global warming.

You're right that there is a flaw here, but it is not about whether or not we will actually use pesticides. The author has laid out a scenario wherein we are doomed either way. He argues that malaria will increase if we do not use pesticides, and also that it will increase if we do use pesticides (because they will cause global warming which will in turn cause more malaria). The flaw here, in my humble opinion, is that the author assumes that the experts who predicted this dilemma are correct - an appeal to authority. They could be wrong!

Interestingly, the stem does not ask about flawed reasoning, just parallel reasoning, and the correct answer does not have the flawed appeal to authority. Our author treats the original argument as valid, or at least he is willing to choose a seemingly valid answer as being parallel to the stimulus. Answer C looks good, with no experts thrown in to mess it up - it sets up a no-win scenario by telling us that inflation will rise if interest rates do not decline, and that it will rise if they do decline. We're doomed either way! It's not about whether they do or do not decline, but about how either situation leads to the same result.

Since C is the closest match, despite omitting the flawed appeal to experts (again, my opinion here on that point), it's the best answer of the bunch. We don't have to love it, but we do have to pick it if we want the credit.

Keep at it!

[sodomojo]

First, as to the nature of the claim about pesticides contributing to global warming, that language (contributes) is causal, not conditional.

This stimulus tells us that pesticides contribute to global warming. Taken at face value, that means they cause global warming (although the author, in using "contributes", allows for the possibility that other factors may also be involved in that causal relationship). It's probably fair to say that, if that is true, the use of pesticides will probably increase global warming.

So since the correct answer uses conditional language, I take it a causal/conditional mismatch is not a disqualifier on parallel questions?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Sodomojo,

If a stimulus only uses causal reasoning, then the correctly paralleled answer will only use causal reasoning. However, in this question, both the stimulus and correct answer choice make both conditional and causal claims.

The first sentences of the stimulus and answer choice (C) are conditional:

• Global Warming Inc or Pesticides Expanded Malaria Inc
• Interest Rates Inc or Demand Declines Inflation Rises

The second sentences of the stimulus and answer choice (C) are causal:

• pesticides contribute to global warming
• a decline in demand will lead to higher interest rates

[supjeremyklein]

I thought this argument was awesome! The question stem is whatever, but this is actually a very controversial syllogism. Whether it’s valid or not is still up for debate!

Breakdown:
Premise: If global warming continues or pesticides aren’t expanded → malaria cases increase
Premise: Use more pesticides → global warming increases
Conclusion: Malaria cases will definitely increase

‘Known To’ & ‘Sufficiency’:
This tripped me up for a second. How do I perceive this argument? Is this in essence conditionality...causality? The way I approached it (under time) was like: Who cares? They’re the fucking same right now! But, going back to the issue I had, how I look at the relationship between pesticide use and global warming depends on what the effect is. I came up with this analogy. Let me know if it’s good!
     Vitamin B12 is known to contribute to reforming bone marrow.
As there are many contributing factors to global warming, there are also so many contributing factors to reforming bone marrow. Pesticide-use and vitamin b12 both supplement the effect they contribute to by way of escalating their respective process. Also, I started thinking down the line of ‘perhaps pesticides (or not all) do not contribute to global warming’. But, honestly, what world would I be living in if pesticides didn’t contribute to global warming? Not this one. The evidence tells me that the pesticide’s contribution is known. Well, if pesticide’s contribution is known (definition: something that is accepted, familiar, or famous) then it’s justified by a direct appeal to the people's general experiences / knowledge. So, with this being thought, I was able to look back at the statement and think: the use of pesticides is sufficient to contribute to the global warming problem. I get it, maybe the average amount of pesticide use contributes an almost unnoticeable amount. But is that really enough to say that it isn’t sufficient to contribute at all?

Conditionality / Causality:
Doing this question timed, I tried to determine whether there was conditionality, causality, or whatever being used, but I totally gave up on that after about a minute. I was like: ahhh conditional indicator...causative indicator...they’re everywhere! I said fuck it. I’m going with conditionality. IDK! Going back and giving it a good stare (and some ‘search), I think looking at this from a propositional / syllogistic standpoint is most appropriate. According to An Introduction to Traditional Logic by Scott M. Sullivan, he explains this to be a ‘basic’ formula for Pascal’s Wager: a very controversial syllogism used by Socrates. So cool! Basically, you’re pinned against the horns without a third alternative, because of the conjunctive premise (the second premise) and how it establishes the constructive dilemma (but for so many controversial reasons). In formula, it kind of looks like this...
     P1: not-A or B, then C.
     P2: A or B
     C: Therefore, C.
Long winded breakdown, I’m sorry! The major premise is a conditional statement; it presents two different antecedents and two identical consequents. The minor (constructive) premise affirms the alternative antecedents of the major premise. The conclusion affirms its consequence. So, it’s like…
     If I exercise at the gym, I will get in shape.
     If I exercise in my bedroom, I will get in shape.
     If I’m not exercising at the gym, I am exercising in my bedroom.
     Therefore, I will get in shape!
It’s pretty cool. This argument is valid depending on who you’re reading! If anyone wants to talk about this, I am so down!

Answer Choices:
(A) This is just the opposite idea. It looks like: If not-X is done or not-Y is done, then Z will happen. If we do Y we will be able to do X, so not-Z will happen. The counter-premise establishes the idea that both disjuncts can be denied together, and that this would draw a prediction contradictory to the presented prediction.

(B) The second premise accepts one of the sufficient conditions of the disjunct and draws its logical conclusion. This is different from the second premise in the stimulus’s argument. By way of implicature, the second premise in the stimulus’s argument becomes exclusive.

(C) This nails it! The second premise establishes that the relationship between the two presented disjuncts have an exclusive relationship of sorts. The explanation above should be enough!

(D) The reasoning is different. This is pointing out that there was an overlooked ignored common cause. The conclusion contradicts its claimed prediction and justifies it by considering an ignored common cause (between the two presented disjuncts).

(E) This is the contradiction of the previous answer choice. The second premise points out an ignored common cause between the two presented conjuncts (supposed to be disjuncts) and its effect.