PT111 · S4 · Q16 Publicity campaigns for endangered species

Out of Scope: experience pain Too Strong: cannot The concept of "experiencing pain" is never discussed, so the author hasn't made any assumptions about whether or not microorganisms have that capacity. The argument implies that it's harder for people to attribute feelings to microorganisms, but that doesn't necessarily mean the author thinks that microorganisms don't have feelings.

The author is definitely assuming a connection between "eliciting sympathy for a certain organism" and "a publicity campaign having much impact on that organism". But she is specifically thinking, "If it's more difficult to elicit sympathy for an organism, then a publicity campaign is unlikely to have much impact". This answer is making a super extreme claim that the #1 most effective thing a publicity campaign can do is elicit sympathy for an organism. The author hasn't committed to a superlative like that. Would it weaken the argument if #1 were celebrity endorsement and the #2 most effective thing was eliciting sympathy? No. It doesn't matter whether eliciting sympathy is the #1 vs. the #2 most effective mechanism for a publicity campaign. The language we care about is "whether it's likely to have much impact", not "whether it's the #1 most impactful".

This, like (C), is temptingly close to a correct Linking idea but written too strongly. The argument was assuming: "If the environmental problems are not affecting creatures for whom is is relatively easy to sympathize with, then a publicity campaign targeting such creatures is unlikely to have much impact." But saying something is unlikely to have much impact does mean it will do nothing. If people are not moved to change their behavior based on these publicity campaigns, that doesn't mean that they are ignoring the problems. For example, I don't necessarily give money to homeless people holding signs at red lights, but that doesn't mean I'm ignoring them. We can notice something but still choose to not do anything about it.

Too Strong: only if Out of Scope: environmentally significant We're always worried if a Necessary Assumption answer sounds stronger than what the author needed to assume, but on modern tests there are a lot of correct answers that are phrased in conditional form. So when we see conditionals, we want to look at how they would be diagrammed and ask ourselves if the author made any such reasoning move. This answer is saying If an organism doesn't then it cannot affect large ecosystems → be environmentally or agriculture significant The author never made this reasoning move. In particular, the author is never talking about whether or not a given organism is environmentally significant. Large mammals might be very environmentally significant, but they aren't part of "the most important environmental problems". Not being part of the biggest problem doesn't mean you're environmentally insignificant. Moreover, we know that soil microorganisms do affect large ecosystems and agriculture, and they do seem significant, since they're assumed to be involved with some of the most important environmental problems. But the argument never created some necessary bond between those two concepts. This is like hearing a paragraph say, "It's harder to feel sorry for other kinds of unemployed workers, such as the sign flippers who were exploited for minimum wage and had to work in the sun all day" and then picking an answer that says we're assuming "an unemployed person is pitiable only if they were exploited for minimum wage and had to work in the sun all day".