frank1 wrote:Although there has been great scientific debate for decades over global warming, most scientists now agree that human activity is causing the Earth's temperature to rise. Though predictions vary, many global warming experts believe that average global temperatures will rise between three and eight degrees Fahrenheit during the next century. Such an increase would cause an alarming rise in sea levels, displacing millions of people by destroying major population centers along the world's coastlines.

Which of the following is an assumption in support of the argument's conclusion?

New technological developments in the next century will not divert rising seas from the world's coastal cities.
Individuals will not become more aware of the steps they can take to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Rising sea levels similarly affect all coastal population centers.
Some global warming experts predict a greater than eight degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures during the next century.
Human activity is the sole cause of increasing global temperatures

Source:MGMAT
OA and my problem later.
Objective of CR is logical thinking with out no out of scope information or background information.

IMO Confused between A and B, my pick A

Thanks
Ok,I will post the OA later.

i would be very grateful if you can post answers to my following questions as well while posting your answer

As we are doing it for business studies that also in CR

Analogy here seems to be

Y is caused by X

Y has not occured
Z may solve it.

You have 2 possibilities
Think about eliminating chance of x taking place so that Y doesnt happen at all.(possible)
Forget probable cause,assume X will any how take place consequently Y and start woryying for Z

Which sounds more logical as per CRITICAL reasoning? or what would you do?

I would be very grateful if some experts can put some light over it.

IMO A.

IMO, E is the answer.

Between A and B i will go for B

Its human activity that causes the raise in temperature that in turn would increase sea levels and finally dislodging the population . Hence E cleary states this from the passage.

frank1 wrote:Although there has been great scientific debate for decades over global warming, most scientists now agree that human activity is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. Though predictions vary, many global warming experts believe that average global temperatures will rise between three and eight degrees Fahrenheit during the next century. Such an increase would cause an alarming rise in sea levels, displacing millions of people by destroying major population centers along the world’s coastlines.

Which of the following is an assumption in support of the argument's conclusion?

New technological developments in the next century will not divert rising seas from the world's coastal cities.
Individuals will not become more aware of the steps they can take to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Rising sea levels similarly affect all coastal population centers.
Some global warming experts predict a greater than eight degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures during the next century.
Human activity is the sole cause of increasing global temperatures

IMO Only A and B could be acceptable as Assumption.
C Similarity of the effect can be discarded.
D In the passage the prediction is quite clearly mentioned 3<F<8, Can be discarded
E It seems OK but scientists are, in part, acknowledging this. I think we can discard. And also it uses pretty strong wordings.

Now A and B both are assumptions to two different cases mentioned in the passage.

A says Technological advances cannot help fighting against the destruction. This can be assumption to the last sentence of the passage. The effect can not be avoided, thus " Such an increase would cause an alarming rise in sea levels, displacing millions of people by destroying major population centers along the world's coastlines."

B says Individuals will not become more aware of the steps they can take to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. This can be an assumption to the cause of temperature rising. However the usage of word "Green House Gases" makes this assumption bit more specific to a certain criterion and "most scientists now agree that human activity is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise" is not the main conclusion.

Hence IMHO A.

@Frank: OA Please?

It's A for me as well

As Shovan noted the conclusion of the passage is, "Such an increase would cause an alarming rise in sea levels, displacing millions of people by destroying major population centers along the world's coastlines"

The correct answer will weaken the conclusion when the assumption is negated.

Between A and B:

A) This answer choice negated becomes: "New technological developments in the next century will divert rising seas from the world's coastal cities." Does this hurt the conclusion? YES. If new technological developments divert rising seas from the world's coastal cities then the conclusion that millions of people will be displaced does not hold. Therefore, this is an assumption of the argument.

B) This answer choice negated becomes: "Individuals will become more aware of the steps they can take to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. " Does this hurt the conclusion? NO. Even if humans "become more aware" of how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions this may not be enough to halt global warming. This answer choice does not even state that humans will implement steps to reduce emissions. It just says they will become aware of them. Additionally, there is no connection between greenhouse gases and global warming in the argument. This answer choice does not have to be true for the conclusion to hold. Therefore it is not an assumption of the argument.

IMO B.

OA is A but to be frank i am still not convinced.
It is just like 'somebody(healthy) has started treatment for dieases' because he feels good medicine wont be there in future or another reasoning: he is worried because he feel like some new diease will emege in 3000 century...
Treatment rather than prevention.

It bows to the opinion that there will be global warming 'ANY HOW' in future what ever we do.We will not (it is not may not) be able to stop it.
It has established opinion as Fact.

Even i feel both are right and saying one right will not be logical for another.

thanks.

frank1 wrote:Although there has been great scientific debate for decades over global warming, most scientists now agree that human activity is causing the Earth's temperature to rise. Though predictions vary, many global warming experts believe that average global temperatures will rise between three and eight degrees Fahrenheit during the next century. Such an increase would cause an alarming rise in sea levels, displacing millions of people by destroying major population centers along the world's coastlines.

Which of the following is an assumption in support of the argument's conclusion?

I received a PM asking me to comment.

The argument above represents a common flaw in arguments: a shift in language. The premise is about X, the conclusion is about Y, and the argument assumes that X connects to Y. More specifically:

X = temperatures will rise between 3 and 8 degrees
Y = millions of people along the coastlines will be displaced

Assumption: That X connects to Y. That the rise in temperatures will result in the displacement of the people.

Now let's examine the answer choices. The assumption is the answer choice that must be true for X to connect to Y, for the rise in tempetures to result in the displacement of the coastal populations. The correct answer must pass the negation test: when the correct answer is reversed, the conclusion must be invalidated.

A) New technological developments in the next century will not divert rising seas from the world's coastal cities. Correct. The argument assumes that we won't be able to prevent the rising sea levels from hurting the coastal populations. This answer choice passes the negation test. If this answer is reversed, the conclusion is invalidated:

New technological developments in the next century will divert rising seas from the world's coastal cities.

If the seas can be diverted, the coastal populations will not be hurt, invalidating the conclusion of the argument. Since reversing A trashes the argument, A is the assumption: the answer choice that must be true for the argument to work.

B) Individuals will not become more aware of the steps they can take to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Out of scope. The argument makes no mention of greenhouse gases or what role they play in the rising temperatures. Reversing B doesn't invalidate the conclusion:

Individuals will become aware of the steps that need to be taken to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Awareness of the steps needed doesn't mean that people actually will take these steps. Thus, reversing B doesn't invalidate the conclusion of the argument. If individuals are aware but do nothing, the coastline populations will still be hurt, and the conclusion of the argument will remain valid.

Rising sea levels similarly affect all coastal population centers. Too extreme. The argument doesn't assume that all coastal population centers will be hurt the same way.

Some global warming experts predict a greater than eight degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures during the next century. The argument doesn't assume this. The argument states as a premise that temperatures will rise 3-8 degrees.

Human activity is the sole cause of increasing global temperatures. Too extreme. The argument doesn't assume that humans are the only cause of global warming. It says only that if temperatures rise, the coastline populations will be hurt.

The correct answer is A.