Max: As evidence mounts showing the terrible changes wrought on the environment by technology, the conclusion that h...

@MichaelaJ on February 6 at 06:28PM

Further explanation needed

Hello- I had a difficult time understanding this question. Can somebody please break this down and explain why A is correct? Thank you!

Replies
Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on February 6 at 09:14PM

Let's start by summing up the arguments:
M thinks because of the damage from tech, we must return to a natural way of living

C thinks that using tech to alter the world actually is natural, so maxs critique is misguided.

That is, she refuted the idea that technology is unnatural (implicit in what M said, as he thinks that returning to a natural state is opposed to using tech). This matches A.
A says that she suggests maxs claimed cause is not actually unnatural. This is what she does, max claimed tech was the cause of the problem, and she is claiming that using tech is not actually unnatural.

@MichaelaJ on February 7 at 06:09PM

Basically, M believes tech is unnatural and C disputed saying it was natural, which was her premises to support her conclusion that M was misguided.

Emil-Kunkin on February 8 at 03:10AM

I think that's a good summation!