Pedro: Unlike cloth diapers, disposable diapers are a threat to the environment. Sixteen billion disposable diapers a...
KiaBrodersenNovember 1, 2023
Drawing Inferences about Meanings.
I noticed in the answer explanation that it says "M never talks about disposable diapers, only cloth ones." This is the only reason I knew that diaper services were for cloth diapers otherwise it's never clear. I guess it's more difficult to ascertain M's method of reasoning if you don't know what a diaper service is. I understand that in context, you're supposed to be able to infer that, but what if M was pointing out inadequacies in P's evidence that he used to draw his conclusion, but then conceding in the second half saying, yes but you're correct in saying that disposable diapers are bad for the environment because look at diaper services. I understand there is no 'concession-language', but there is also not anything to indicate the last half of her quote was in support of the answer choice. I guess my question here is, how, without much context or ability to infer based off of the wording, are you supposed to just know what a diaper service or any other general term is?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
This is a great question, I agree this requires us to make an inference that might go beyond normal lives experience or the direct text.
I think the first tool we can use is common sense. We are told a diaper service they must be delivered by trucks. This seems to fit far better with cloth reusable diapers than with disposable ones. Why would there be special services for diapers when ever store in the country carries disposable diapers? This is far from conclusive, but I think the weight of the thing described supports the idea that it refers to cloth diapers.
The second tool is something you touched on. The context. Maria's statement starts off with a clear rebuttal; so we can infer she is going to be arguing in opposition to cloth diapers. Even if she never explicitly adds a furthermore, she did indeed state two premises that were unequivocally opposed to cloth, followed by one that isn't as clear. This context likely should Be enough to infer that, in the a sense of anything that would seem to be a change of direction, the service applies to cloth diapers. The support for the fact that the last sentence was was in support of her overall argument is the first sentence. If I say "X is bad because Y, Because Z, and also g is true" we can reasonably infer that g is in support of the claim that X is bad.
