Forester: The great majority of the forests remaining in the world are only sickly fragments of the fully functioning ecosystems they once were. These fragmented forest ecosystems have typically lost their ability to sustain themselves in the long term, yet they include the last refuges for some of the world’s most endangered species. To maintain its full complement of plant and animal species, a fragmented forest requires regular interventions by resource managers.

Summary

The forester says that most forests are currently fragmented and sickly. Fragmented forests usually can’t stay alive long-term. However, some fragmented forests are the only habitat for endangered species. Finally, to keep all the plants and animals in a fragmented forest alive, the forest needs regular interventions by resource managers.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

These facts support the following conclusions:

At least some fragmented forests used to have the ability to sustain themselves long-term.

Most forests will lose plant or animal species without regular interventions by resource managers.

Regular interventions by resource managers are required to protect some of the world’s most endangered species.

A
Most of the world’s forests will lose at least some of their plant or animal species if no one intervenes.

This is strongly supported. We know that most forests are fragmented, and that fragmented forests require intervention to maintain all their plant and animal species. This lets us infer that if no one intervenes, most forests will lose at least some species.

B
Unless resource managers regularly intervene in most of the world’s remaining forests, many of the world’s most endangered species will not survive.

This is not supported. We know that the survival of at least some endangered species requires intervention in at least some forests. But that definitely doesn’t tell us that we need intervention in most of the world’s forests to keep endangered species alive.

C
A fragmented forest ecosystem cannot sustain itself in the long term if it loses any of its plant or animal species.

This is not supported. The stimulus never sets out losing species as a sufficient condition for a fragmented forest to fail to sustain itself. Instead, we just get two facts: fragmented forests can’t sustain themselves long-term, and will lose species without intervention.

D
A complete, fully functioning forest ecosystem can always maintain its full complement of plant and animal species even without interventions by resource managers.

This is not supported. The stimulus tells us about fragmented forests, not about complete and functional forests. We have no idea if complete forests can maintain all their plant and animal species, or under what conditions that would be possible.

E
At present, resource managers intervene regularly in only some of the world’s fragmented forest ecosystems.

This is not supported. The facts above don’t indicate whether resource managers currently actually intervene in fragmented forests at all. We just don’t know.


33 comments

Counselor: Constantly comparing oneself to those one sees as more able or more successful almost invariably leads to self-disparagement. Conversely, constantly comparing oneself to those one sees as less able or less successful almost invariably leads to being dismissive of others. So, those who for the most part refrain from comparing themselves to others will most likely be, on the whole, self-accepting and accepting of others.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people who refrain from comparing themselves to others will most likely be self-accepting and accepting of others. This is based on the fact that constantly comparing oneself with those one sees are more successful leads to self-disparagement. And, constantly comparing oneself with those one sees as less successful leads to be dismissive of others.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that there are no other ways to be self-disparaging and dismissive of others besides comparing oneself to those one sees as more successful or less successful. This overlooks the possibility that even if you stop comparing yourself to others, you might still self-disparage or dismiss others. The argument also assumes that if you’re not self-disparaging, you’ll be self-accepting, and that if you don’t dismiss others, you’ll accept others.

A
overlooks the possibility that one can compare oneself both to those one perceives to be more able and more successful than oneself and to those one perceives to be less able and less successful than oneself
This possibility doesn’t undermine the argument. Perhaps someone can compare oneself both to people thought of as more successful and people thought of as less successful. The author’s conclusion concerns what happens if you stop comparing yourself to anybody at all.
B
overlooks the possibility that constantly comparing oneself to others may have beneficial effects that those who refrain from making such comparisons are deprived of
The conclusion is not a recommendation that you shouldn’t compare yourself to others. It’s simply a description of what the author thinks will happen regarding self-acceptance and acceptance of others. Other benefits from comparison have no impact on this conclusion.
C
takes for granted that if one is both dismissive of others and self-disparaging, one will not be self-accepting and accepting of others
One assumption is that NOT being self-disparaging implies self-acceptance, and NOT being dismissive of others implies accepting others. (C) wrongly turns this into the idea that being self-disparaging implies NOT self-accepting, and being dismissive implies NOT accepting others.
D
overlooks the possibility that self-disparagement and being dismissive of others can result from something other than comparing oneself to others
If this possibility were true, the conclusion does not follow. Refraining from comparisons could not be expected to lead to avoidance of self-disparagement and dismissiveness if there were other things that caused these feelings. So overlooking this possibility is a flaw.
E
takes for granted that whenever one compares oneself to others one sees them as more successful and more able than oneself or less successful and less able than oneself
The author is open to the idea that not all comparisons involve people you think of as better/worse. The author simply asserts that if you don’t compare yourself to anyone, you’ll avoid things that we know result from comparing yourself to people you think of as better/worse.

54 comments