#6- Forestry official: Many people think that if forest fires

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[chian9010]

Dear powerscore,

Could you please tell me why B is better than C? I can't tell why C is wrong...

Thank you,

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Chian9010,
For Answer C the "ideas that most people have about how it should do its job" would be referring to the sufficient part of their argument, which is that forest fires are not being extinguished properly. But the Forestry Official's argument is structured to attack the necessary part of their argument, which is that the Forestry Dept. is not doing its job properly. It does this by focusing on the reasons why the Forestry Dept. conducts its fire extinguishing in a way that people may not initially understand. But again the purpose is not to show what would happen if the Forestry Dept. listened to the folks who didn't understand why they were allowing fires to burn, it's to show why those people are wrong for believing that the Forestry Dept. is not doing its job properly.
Hope that helps!
-Malila

[Gg2019]

If you’re needing an additional reason to reject (C) not that the stimulus says “MANY people think” while the answer choice requires information on ideas that “MOST people have”. The stimulus does not, however, give any insight into what most/the majority of people think. Most people could think firefighters should allow small fires to burn.

[lsatter430]

Can you clarify why C is wrong? I don't understand your point about the necessary/sufficient component of the argument. I understand the most vs. many issue (thank you for adding that), but i would like to understand the point Malila is making.

[Adam Tyson]

Gg2019: Boom! Nice work there! C can be rejected because we have no idea what polices "most" people think the forestry department ought to follow.

lsatter430, what Malila is saying here is that the folks who are unhappy with the forestry department are making a conditional argument: IF you don't put out the small fires, THEN you aren't doing your job correctly. The author isn't arguing about the sufficient condition - he agrees that they aren't putting out every small fire. Instead, he is arguing that the alleged necessary condition is not necessary - they ARE doing their job properly. The claim in question about small fires clearing out small trees and debris is not about whether they are doing their job properly, and so it doesn't address the part of the opposing argument that he argues against. It's "sure, they do that - and that's good". It isn't about the consequences of following a policy, but about what happens when the fires burn.

I hope that helps!

[gtruss01]

6) Argument Part (The statement supports the conclusion of why small fires should burn)

A- This is supporting the wrong side.

B- It is used as support to the claim to let small fires burn. Thus, going against the argument of the many people. CORRECT

C- This part doesn't show the consequences. The next portion of the sentence does that.

D- It is not an example, it is used as support.

E- Not a conclusion.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Excellent breakdown, gtruss!

Answer choice (A) is such a good trap here. It's the opposite answer, but it's placed right before the correct answer choice. It can be really tempting if you are rushing through the answer choices, or try to jump in without a prephrase.

[shanekoch1]

I have a question on method of reasoning AP questions if anyone can help.
The stimulus is:
Forestry official: Many people think that if forest fires....
The question stem is: The statement that relatively frequent...

I was wondering how is that line in the stimulus a conclusion and not a premise? I thought the final conclusion was the last sentence and the IC was the first sentence?
If anyone can help I'd appreciate it!
Shane

[Stephanie Oswalt]

I have a question on method of reasoning AP questions if anyone can help.
The stimulus is:
Forestry official: Many people think that if forest fires....
The question stem is: The statement that relatively frequent...
I was wondering how is that line in the stimulus a conclusion and not a premise? I thought the final conclusion was the last sentence and the IC was the first sentence?
If anyone can help I'd appreciate it!
Shane

Hi Shane,

I have moved your question to the thread discussing this topic. Please review the above explanation, and let us know if that helps or if you still have further questions.

Thanks!