#1826

[oak.faith]

Hi,

Can someone please explain the main conclusion in Question 1826 to me? Its the question about the reporter talking about the devastation caused by natural catastrophe, and at the end claims it was more because of the confusion than it was aid worker nonresponsiveness.

Thanks!

[noah]

Hi,

Can someone please explain the main conclusion in Question 1826 to me? Its the question about the reporter talking about the devastation caused by natural catastrophe, and at the end claims it was more because of the confusion than it was aid worker nonresponsiveness.

Thanks!

I believe you mean this:

Reporter: Catastrophic damage has been done to the area’s infrastructure. Water systems, electrical systems, and roads have been damaged or even destroyed. This is more likely the cause of the confusion than is the lack of aid-worker responsiveness, though a more timely arrival of certain organizations would have helped stem the chaos.

The first two sentences are factual. The third sentence, the conclusion, is an opinion, and is based on the facts given earlier, with the final clause (starting with "though") being a counter premise. In short: lots and lots of damage --> this is more likely the reason for the confusion than people not responding

Does that clear it up?