Q12 - Because dried peat moss

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Principle-Strengthen (which principle most justifies)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Gardeners' using lots of peat moss as a soil conditioner is NOT environmentally sound.
Evidence: Peat moss is derived from sphagnum moss, which is a crucial source of atmospheric oxygen, and the garden soil industry is depleting this source.

Answer Anticipation:
The buzzword of the conclusion is whether something is or isn't "environmentally sound". So we'll definitely need a principle that helps instruct us how to judge whether something is or isn't environmentally sound. We know that there is a good thing and a bad thing with using peat moss, derived from sphagnum, to condition soil. The author clearly thinks that the bad thing outweighs the good thing. So we need an answer to help us feel like "depleting one of the world's biggest sources of atmospheric oxygen" is a very bad, environmentally unsound thing.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Way too wishy-washy: it MAY be environmentally unsound?

(B) Yes! This gives us a rule that says "if it reduces atmospheric oxygen, it's environmentally unsound". We know the practice of using peat moss in the garden soil industry triggers the left side idea, and thus we get the conclusion we were looking for.

(C) Reversed logic. This is a rule that says "if it's xyz, then it's environmentally SOUND". That sort of rule has no power to prove that something is "environmentally UNSOUND".

(D) Same as (C). This rule could only prove that something is environmentally SOUND, but never could it prove UNSOUND.

(E) This is a rule that allows you to conclude "we should BAN a practice". But this argument isn't concluding "we should ban a practice", just that "the practice is environmentally unsound".

Takeaway/Pattern: One of the most common shortcuts on Principle-Strengthen questions is just having a strict awareness of what idea you're looking to prove in the Conclusion. We are trying to prove "environmentally unsound", and only (B) gives us a rule that could do so. Thus, most of these answers aren't even worth a close reading.

#officialexplanation

[chike_eze]

Correct (B)
Type: Justify, Strengthen

Just because dried peat moss (derived from sphagnum) contains no chemical additives and is a renewable resource does not make it environmentally sound.

Why? In deriving peat moss, millions of acres of sphagnum moss are destroyed at a much faster rate than they are replaced... and this sphagnum thingy is really important for releasing Oxygen into the atmosphere.

Implication: Less sphagnum, less Oxygen released in the atmosphere.

Gap: What is the relationship between less oxygen released in the atmosphere and environmentally not sound?? The assumption must be that if X causes less Oxygen to be released, then X must not be environmentally sound.

(B) If reduces Oxygen, then not environmentally sound. Bingo!

(A) Seems to fit, but it does not address the main issue regarding Oxygen and environmental soundness
(C) We do not know anything about what would lead to environmental soundness in this case
(D) Cost and benefit analysis is way off -- true but irrelevant
(E) "Vital resource" "Banned" -- these were not discussed in the prompt. Out of Scope.

[joseph.m.kirby]

Another problem with (A) is that it says even if the product is a renewable resource and contains no chemical additives, it "may be" environmentally unsound. This principle leaves open the slight possibility that there are instances where something can be a renewable resource, and contain no chemical additives, while also being environmentally sound.

[timmydoeslsat]

And also think how we want a principle to lead us to a conclusion of ~enviromentally sound.

A) May be?

C) Leads to environmentally sound. This will never get us to ~not environmentally sound.

D) Same issue as C.

E) Practices banned?

[xinglipku]

When talking about "principle", how abstract/universal should it be? I eliminated B because I thought it seems too detailed to be correct..

[griffin.811]

My issue is how do we know that using s moss depletes oxygen? Maybe its used to grow grass that creates more oxygen than the moss that is being depleted would have?

Right now I'm thinking even ifbtye grass does provide more oxygen it takes time for it to grow, so at least temporarily it reduces the amt of oxygen.

Eh this has too many loose ends for my liking...

[ohthatpatrick]

Remember, the correct answer here does not have to be perfect or provide a logical guarantee.

It's true that MAYBE what the gardeners will grow will ultimately produce more oxygen ... i.e. the facts of the stimulus do not specifically preclude that. BUT, the only premise we have to go off is that sphagnum moss contributes oxygen to the atmosphere.

So we HAVE to get a principle that takes us from,
depleting something that provides oxygen --> ~envir sound

If it makes you feel better about the common sense / realistic gist behind this stimulus, the rainforests are considered the most dense habitat of vegetation, so there's no way a garden is going to produce more oxygen than a rainforest.

(To answer the previous poster's comment .. the correct principle is also free to be completely specific to the details discussed or broader in such a way that the details discussed fall within the principle's scope)

I really endorse Timmy's approach to this problem which is to analyze whether an answer choice is even structured to help you prove the conclusion: ~envir sound

Only (B) gives us a conditional that would yield
--> ~envir sound

[mornincounselor]

I don't like the word "significantly" in choice (B). This principle, if assumed to be valid, wouldn't justify the argument at all if the reduction in the amount of oxygen entering the atmosphere is minimal. I don't see how we know this reduction is "significant."

I chose (A) for this reason.

Can someone help me, did I miss something in the prompt?

[valmir_merkaj]

Its funny, I took the same exam yesterday and I got the same one wrong.

The stimulus says that the garden soil industry is depleting the areas of dried peat moss much faster than they can renew themselves. And since dried peat moss contribute more oxygen to the atmosphere than all of the worlds rain forests combined, it can be assumed that if the practice continues, it will significantly reduce the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.

I was put off by the word significantly as well. And the answer A is a necessary condition, and that adds to the confusion since we are so trained to find those missing necessary assumptions. However, to strengthen or justify this conclusion, B does the job.

[ohthatpatrick]

Excellent question and excellent response!

Sphagnum moss is implied to be an extremely significant source of oxygen. The garden soil industry is depleting sphagnum moss MUCH FASTER than it can renew itself.

Significant isn't really quantifiable ... it's more subjective, and there's enough common sense stuff going on here to think rapidly depleting the millions of acres of sphagnum moss is going to be a "significant" loss of oxygen. The opposite of significant is negligible. Do you feel like you could really defend the idea that the oxygen loss they're describing is negligible?

And (A) is super duper weak sauce. Principle-Justify is like Sufficient Assumption's little brother. We should be very wary of weak language since our goal is to do as much as we can to justify the conclusion.

[contropositive]

This is an extremely confusing answer choice. I understood the argument but I can't seem to figure out why B is the right answer. Here is what I thought of the argument:

If it's contributing MORE OXYGEN entering the atmosphere and being depleted faster than renewed, then it is NOT environmentally sound.

B) If it REDUCED OXYGEN entering the atmosphere, the practice is NOT environmentally sound.

That is definitely incorrect negation.

[ohthatpatrick]

You said:
If it's contributing MORE OXYGEN entering the atmosphere and being depleted faster than renewed, then it is NOT environmentally sound.


Watch out for your use of pronouns there. The "it" you refer to on the left side is not the same as the "it" on the right side.

[Peat moss] contributes MORE OXYGEN and is being depleted
[the practice of using peat moss on your garden] is NOT environmentally sound.

Generally speaking, you need to think about the Subject Noun in the conclusion and reverse engineer from there.

Since we know we're trying to prove:
[the practice of using peat moss on your garden] is NOT environmentally sound.

We need to ask ourselves, "What do I know about the practice of using peat moss?"

We know that it is depleting the overall level of peat moss that exists. So a principle that would get us to the conclusion could be:

IF [the practice] depletes the overall level of peat moss, THEN [the practice] is not environmentally sound.

======

But I think your real confusion is that you're seeing some internal contradiction between MORE OXYGEN and REDUCED OYGEN.

There are two separate facts about peat moss
1. It produces more oxygen than rainforests
2. Its overall level is being lowered by the effects of the garden industry

The MORE OXYGEN is just a pointless comparison to rainforests for a moment of emphasis. Wow, they're super oxygen creators! Thanks, author.

But it wouldn't matter whether peat moss was #1, #2, or #37 on the list of oxygen creators.

If the overall level of peat moss is being lowered by the garden industry, then the garden industry is causing less oxygen to be created.

So the idea (B) is using is just that we are depleting the level of an oxygen generating plant, by using it in our garden. Thus, it's unsound.

It's a funny sounding Duh principle. Humans don't think they need to spell out the fact that "If you're getting rid of oxygen, BAD."

But the author never said it. He stopped at "less peat moss (less oxygen)" and jumped to "unsound".