#21 - Farmer: Farming with artificial fertilizers, though

[Becca1924]

Oh I see now, thanks.

[nhlsat1234567]

Question on answer (B). Perhaps this is just an unreasonable level of detail but it was confusing me. Thanks!

take this: 100 farmers -- 99 practice organic farming. For it to spread, then no farmers could choose not to adopt it
or this: 100 farmers -- 98 practice organic farming. For it to spread, then at most 1 farmer could choose not to adopt it

In both cases, it is impossible for "many" farmers to choose not to adopt it.

Since we don't know how many farmers already adopted organic farming in this argument, how can we say the Farmer falsely presumes that spreading organic farming requires all farmers to adopt it. Maybe it does. That is, we don't know if it is even feasible for "many" farmers to choose not to adopt it. And so how can we criticize the farmer for overlooking a possibility that we don't even know is possible?

Again, maybe the answer is just that you shouldn't pay attention to such edge cases. Appreciate the time!

[Robert Carroll]

nhlsat1234567,

Any number of farmers could already be doing it. So the farmer bears the burden of showing us, among other things, that we're in a situation where nearly all farmers are already doing it, so that there aren't "many" left who could choose not to adopt it. If we're in the situation where 99 or 98 out of 100 farmers are already doing it, then of course the author is right...but how do we know we're in that situation? The premises haven't established that we're near 100 out of 100. If, instead, only 5 out of 100 farmers are already doing it (something that is possible), the author is wrong - plenty of farmers could start going organic, and there would still be "many" left who might not. This possibility is possible because nothing in the premises has ruled it out. It's not our job to show that there are relatively many farmers left who haven't yet gone organic - it's not our argument!

Robert Carroll

[nonowing]

I have a different take on this question.

Answer choice D says "Overlooks the possibility that a consequence that would surely follow if all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming would still ensue even if not all of them did." Let's break this apart.

"Overlooks the possibility" means that the author is neglecting a thing that may happen.
What's the "possibility"? The next part says that the possibility is a consequence that would surely follow if all did ... would still ensue even if not all of them did. Basically, this means that something that will definitely happen if a condition is met could still happen even if that condition is not fully met. (ex: if 99% of farmers adopted organic farming, then the world may be unable to produce enough food for earth's growing population). This is not the flaw the author makes -- they do not assume that because a single sufficient condition is not fully met, that the result can not happen. One way to make D work is to replace "overlooks the possibility" with "unjustifiably assumes that." D is a trap answer that puts words that sound good but are far from correct.

Instead, they assume that if organic farming spreads ANY further, then everyone will use it and the world will be unable to produce food. This is silly -- if it spreads to one more farmer then this does not mean that the world will be unable to produce food. Furthermore, just because it spreads does not mean that everyone adopts it (how much will it spread? How many farmers adopt it?). We don't have a clear consensus on which one is the better technique; the stimulus says that organic farming is better for the environment but artificial fertilizers allow more food to be grown on land (higher yield). In order for this argument to work, the author needs to prove that all farmers would adopt it if it spreads any further -- they have not provided us enough evidence of this. Spreading further does not mean it reaches everyone, let alone convinces them to adopt, especially since artifical fertilizers offer higher yield. Answer choice B captures this flaw.

[Adam Tyson]

I think that's a good analysis of that answer, nonowing. D would be better if instead of saying "overlooks the possibility," it said "assumes without justification." This author is saying it would be a problem if everyone did it, but then they get super extreme and claim nobody else should be allowed to do it. This is overlooking the possibility that a consequence that would surely follow if all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming might not ensue if more, but not all of them, did. Or, to put it another way, they are assuming without justification that a consequence that would surely follow if all farmers adopted the practice of organic farming would still ensue if only some of them did.

D is, essentially, an opposite answer. It's not a flaw in the argument. It's describing something that, were it true, would strengthen the argument.