LR Question 6 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Prominent government officials have denied that …
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: Government policies have produced serious environmental degradation.
REASONING: The government removed the ban on dumping mining waste into streams last year. After that, streams were buried under mining waste.
ANALYSIS: This argument assumes that the government lifting the ban is what caused the degradation. If the waste would have ended up in the streams anyway (even with the ban), then they wouldn’t be responsible.
___________
- The government’s motivation for removing the ban doesn’t affect whether this removal caused degradation.
Negation: Without the urging of mining companies, the government could still have lifted the ban. - Like the government’s motivation, their sincerity is also irrelevant. The argument is about whether the policy actually caused the harm. Officials could sincerely but mistakenly believe their policy caused no harm.
Negation: The officials do genuinely believe their denials. - Too specific. It doesn’t matter which companies caused the damage, just whether the government repeal enabled some company to put waste in streams.
Negation: The mining companies that pushed for the ban to be lifted did not put waste in streams, but other mining companies still did as a result of the ban being lifted. - So the government tends to listen more to mining companies than people who care for the environment. That’s part of their motivations but still doesn’t tell us anything about what caused the harm.
Negation: The government is not more responsive to mining companies than to environmentalists. - CORRECT. Without this, the policy wouldn’t have caused the degradation, which would destroy the conclusion.
Negation: Even if the ban had remained in place, roughly the same amount of mining waste would have entered streams.
can you show your process on how you negated A and E?
Sure! So, A is about a conditional rule. You negate that by saying the rule is not true. I should have said “could”, I’ve edited the explanation. So, for example, if I say:
“If you go to law school, you have to do tax law once you graduate”
You would disagree by saying:
“What?! I can go to law school and not do tax law when I graduate,”
So the sufficient happens, but the necessary doesn’t have to.
E is the same principle. We say “even if the sufficient happens, the necessary doesn’t have to”. So “even if it had not –> no effect on mining waste”. Had not been repealed = stayed in place.
I hope that helps! You can practicing by coming up with simple rules then saying “Hey that’s not true!”. Like “If you don’t eat dinner, you will be hungry.” And you say “Hey! Even if I don’t eat dinner, I might still not be hungry. What if I had an enormous lunch and snack?” Etc.