- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Jul 03, 2015
- Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:28 pm
#19439
Hi Vas,
Thanks for your question! I like this argument, because it really illustrates the mechanics of an assumption question.
So, as an alternative explanation, imagine this scenario:
A species of bird depends on peach trees for food an will go extinct if peach trees are allowed to be cut down. Though trees are not the sort of being which can have rights, birds are, and it happens that we as humans have an obligation to this species of bird not to cause them to go extinct. In that scenario, we would have an obligation not to cut down the peach trees, even though the obligation is to the birds and not the trees.
When applied to this argument, this explanation makes it clear that the author here is assuming that no such obligation not to cut down trees exists and is owed to an entity other than the trees themselves.
In order to reach his conclusion, our author must have assumed that such a scenario is not the case, and thus D is the right answer.
Does that make sense?
Thanks for your question! I like this argument, because it really illustrates the mechanics of an assumption question.
So, as an alternative explanation, imagine this scenario:
A species of bird depends on peach trees for food an will go extinct if peach trees are allowed to be cut down. Though trees are not the sort of being which can have rights, birds are, and it happens that we as humans have an obligation to this species of bird not to cause them to go extinct. In that scenario, we would have an obligation not to cut down the peach trees, even though the obligation is to the birds and not the trees.
When applied to this argument, this explanation makes it clear that the author here is assuming that no such obligation not to cut down trees exists and is owed to an entity other than the trees themselves.
In order to reach his conclusion, our author must have assumed that such a scenario is not the case, and thus D is the right answer.
Does that make sense?