#12 - People in the tourist industry know that excessive

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

I picked E for this answer, I know that it is D, I just want to make sure what makes E wrong and D right.

Thanks

Ellen

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Ellen,

Answer choice he states "the argument establishes that a certain state of affairs is likely and then treats that is evidence that the state of affairs is inevitable." Perhaps the appeal of answer choice E is that a decrease in tourism is the likelihood to which it refers. However, there isn't anywhere in the stimulus where it makes a flaw of converting this likelihood into an inevitability.

Rather, answer choice D is the best answer because it stresses that those in the industry are acting unintentionally. The last three lines of the stimulus are it's conclusion; notes that they insert the word "knowingly," stating that the industry "would never knowingly damage the seaside environment." Answer choice D correctly points out that this may be true, but they may nevertheless unknowingly damaged the seaside environment.

Hope that helps!

[ellenb]

So, basically the word knowingly makes us think of the other side that is omitted,

It would be like: John would never knowingly eat junk food

(however, he might just eat it while drunk), which will sort of make him not really pay attention and make it unknowingly. So, the stimulus basically just does one side of the story and omits the other. Kind of like dual dilema, only here they give us a part of it and the other side we must figure it out that it is missing. right?

Thanks

Ellen

[Steve Stein]

Hey Ellen,

You got it--the word "knowingly" limits the claim, and opens up the possibility that the act could still take place unwittingly.

Like if someone were to say, "I would never hurt anyone...without a good reason," that last part refers to the chance that, given a good reason, maybe the speaker would be willing to hurt someone.

I hope that's helpful!

~Steve

[Reneewill81]

Hi Powerscore!
So I eliminated all answers except for B and D and I ended up choosing the wrong answer even though my gut told me it was D. It was because I couldn't eliminate B and B made a bit of sense.
Here's my thought process.
I thought that "Something is not the cause of a problem" refers to the tourist industry and how the stimulus may be proving that the tourist industry is not the cause of the excessive development of seaside areas by stating that they "would never knowingly do anything to damage the industry." I thought that when the answer choice says "never coexist" I thought it meant something along the lines of "The tourist industry won't let it happen."
Upon further thought, I know why D is correct. I just don't know how to eliminate B. So how is B eliminated and also, how can I avoid making this mistake of misinterpretation again?

[Adam Tyson]

Looks like you did a little too much to help answer B here, Reneewill81! We have to avoid being that helpful - the answers should succeed or fail on their own. Here's how I would have analyzed answer B:

The answer is about one thing not causing another is used as evidence, so that means there is a premise that says something like "X does not cause Y." Is there such a premise? No, so this answer is a loser. I'm done with it and don't need to look at the rest, but if I did I would then ask myself "does the author conclude that two things never coexist, they never go together?" Not really - the conclusion is about not having to fear something. Don't worry, you're safe from harm from the tourist industry. That is not the same as "tourism and harm to the environment never both happen."

The correct answer has to accurately describe what happened in the stimulus, and as soon as describes something that did NOT happen, it is a wrong answer!

The problem here is that the author leaps from "they won't knowingly harm" to "they won't harm." If that is your prephrase, an answer like B will never even slow you down but will be an obvious loser!