#11 - The goal of reforesting degraded land is to create an

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[rappel2]

Hello, can someone please explain why C is wrong? I thought it resolved the paradox because it would explain why having a multitude of species is unsuccessful.

[Adam Tyson]

That's not the paradox we are trying to resolve, rappel2! The stimulus tells us that some experienced land managers are acting in a way that appears contrary to the goals of reforesting degraded land. That's what we need to explain - why are they doing something that, on its face, appears to run counter to their goals? The explanation is that it is NOT counter to their goals, but actually helps to achieve those goals, and that is what answer D gives us.

Answer C leaves us still scratching our heads. Okay, so you have to plant native species if you want to succeed in reforesting degraded land. But why are these guys planting a single, fast-growing species, when the goal still requires diversity? Are these fast-growing trees even native to the area? How does this new information help explain their behavior, which still appears to conflict with their goals?

Be sure you understand what the paradox is, and then look for an answer that makes sense of that otherwise odd situation. If something appears to create a conflict, look for an answer that shows that is not, in fact, a conflict.

Keep at it, these Resolve questions can be kind of fun once you get used to them!

[cornflakes]

Hi Powerscore,

I understand why C is incorrect and D is correct - the poster above Adam brings up an interesting point, however, that I'd like to flesh out. I don't agree with their interpretation of the answer, but let's say that the answer C did give us something that directly said "reforesting degraded land with a multitude of trees is not effective (for whatever reason) - would something like this still be acceptable, even though it seems to be more predicated on destroying a premise than allowing both premises to be true? It still offers a viable mean to solve the paradox, albeit in a different manner.

Where my head immediately goes here is PT83 Sec2 Q10, which essentially asks us to solve the paradox of how some prey species survive without effective camoflouge to the human eye when camoflouge is the only means available to protect that particular species. The correct answer in this question essentially suggests that the animals actually ARE camoflouged - its states that the predators see camoflouge differently than humans.

Applied to this problem, what I'm wondering is if this method would be equivalent to essentially saying "while the goal is multitude of species, a multitude of species is not effective" - it essentially directly contradicts one of the premises creating the paradox, in a similar fashion to the previous problem.

The reason understanding this is important is because I felt that for paradox problems, we have to let premises be true and find a way to reconcile them without just saying one doesn't actually happen. Are we allowed to say one doesn't actually happen?

[Adam Tyson]

Contradicting the facts (which are not premises because there is no conclusion and thus no argument) is never a good way to go about resolving a paradox, cornflakes. In the example you cited about camouflage, the correct answer didn't contradict the facts but instead supplemented the facts with new, helpful information (it may not look like camo to human eyes, but it still can be camo to the creatures that matter in that situation).

Here, we actually aren't concerned with whether a multitude of tree species "works" or is a good idea. Whether they have an effective goal in mind or not, the forest managers are still behaving in a way that appears on the surface to conflict with their goals. Why, if the goal is variety, do these people plant just one kind? That's what we need to resolve. We need to see that planting one kind doesn't conflict with the goal, but actually supports it. Either that, or we need some reason for why they would behave in a way that is contrary to their supposed goals, like maybe they are being bribed by lumber companies (that would have made for an interesting twist in the answers!)

Don't look for an answer that says "actually, variety is not their goal," because that doesn't resolve the paradox but instead denies that the paradox exists in the first place. That would no more be the right way to go about it than it would to look for an answer that says "actually they don't plant just one kind of tree."

For Resolve questions, accept the facts, and find the new info that helps make sense of them. Look for what is causing this apparently odd situation to occur.