#21 - In several countries, to slow global warming, many

[ericau02]

Hi wouldnt "native grasses" be a rogue term though? And also can you further explain why B is incorrect.

[ericau02]

This is saw makes sense, but my question is if you see any term that falls into the unless equation in an ac must you always use conditional language and especially one like this that does not contain conditional reasoning in the stimulus itself.

Hi 202,

This is a great question! And a tricky two-step process that you almost have down.

Let's take a look at the specific language so that others can follow allong. Answer Option (B) states:
"(B) most farmers do not plant any trees on their land unless there is an incentive to do so"

You have to convert that unless statement first to the conditional:

If most farmers plant any trees on their land, then there is an incentive to do so.

Then, you have to negate it for our Assupmption Negation technique. Well done by adding "even" to your phrasing! So let's keep it in there and negate it to:

Even if most farmers plant any trees on their land, then there is not incentive to do so.

Note that the conclusion in the stimulus did not pertain to why farmers plant trees, and therefore this negated information has no effect on the conclusion.

Thanks so much for the great question and I hope this helps!

[Zach Foreman]

Erica,
Rather than trying to eliminate wrong answers, it is far faster and more efficient to prephrase the right answer (though this is a skill that is difficult to master). The argument seems to say that since native grasses absorb CO2 better than trees, incentives to plant more trees hasten global warming. This argument seems extreme. Why? Well, just because a square meter of trees might eliminate 10 tons of CO2 per year and a square meter of native grasses might eliminate 12 tons per year doesn't mean that planting trees makes global warming worse. Unless...
Unless of course more trees meant less grass. So that is my prephrase. Answer D is the only one that talks about both trees and native grasses and does seem to say that planting trees displaces grasses, which are better.

Now to your question about B. It is not relevant. We already accept the idea that the government incentives lead to more tree planting. That is not in dispute. What is disputed is whether that is overall good for removing CO2. Of course each tree removes CO2 but if it replaces native grasses remove more, it could be the less good choice.

We don't always need to analyze every answer choice with unless using conditional reasoning (only most of the time! ) but when you also need to negate it for Assumption Negation purposes, then you DO need to carefully diagram and negate. Hope that helps.

[kristinsmith04]

Hello, I am wondering how to negate answer choice A. Is it simply, "trees only absorb carbon dioxide?"

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Kristin,

Yes. That is exactly how I would negate that answer choice. Can you see how that does not weaken the argument? We still don't know about how the native grasses would be/be not present without the trees.

Hope that helps!