PrepTest 151

Incorrect. Even if mining creates less pollution than other activities, it might still create enough to harm Martian ecosystems.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Pollution can only be wrong if it 1) harms an ecosystem, or 2) harms humans. Mining Mars would pollute it, but not enough to hurt the humans mining there, so it's not wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
That first statement can be rewritten in a conditional format, in a way that lines up with the main conclusion of the argument:

If (Doesn't harm ecosystem) and (Doesn't harm humans) → Not wrong

The argument establishes that humans won't be harmed, but it doesn't talk about the ecosystem of Mars. In order to reach the conclusion, both must be true, so the correct answer will guarantee that mining on Mars won't harm ecosystems.

Answer Explanation:
Not exactly what we were expecting, but if there are no ecosystems on Mars, then they can't be harmed. This answer guarantees the other condition is met, justifying the conclusion, and is thus correct.

Key Takeaway:
When a Sufficient Assumption question has an argument that establishes two criteria, one is almost always not met, and the correct answer will establish it as being met.

Incorrect. It might be tempting to consider the benefits outweighing the costs as justifying Martian mining. However, the argument clearly establishes rules for what is not wrong, and economic benefits don't play into that determination. This answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This argument is about morality, not reality! Whether something is possible is irrelevant to whether it would be correct if possible. It's not currently technologically feasible to blow up the sun, but it would still be wrong to do so.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't discuss complexity, so this answer is out of scope.