Back
to top
Argument questions 16th
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Please refer to the attachment.
Could you please explain what point A is saying? In particular, if you could explain what “objections to the manner of use” means in that context.
Could you please explain what point A is saying? In particular, if you could explain what “objections to the manner of use” means in that context.
Last edited by As.1997; 10 months ago
0
reply
Report
#2
(Original post by As.1997)
Please refer to the attachment.
Could you please explain what point A is saying? In particular if you could explain what “objections to the manner of use” means in that context.
Attachment 887058
Please refer to the attachment.
Could you please explain what point A is saying? In particular if you could explain what “objections to the manner of use” means in that context.
Attachment 887058
0
reply
(Original post by mqb2766)
Not found for me. Can you upload again in the reply?
Not found for me. Can you upload again in the reply?
0
reply
Report
#4
I guess it's talking about the article discussing the detail of how pesticides are used (sprayed, types of pesticides). Whereas the article discussies the effects of the use of pesticides in general and why they're used. There is no/little discussion about how/the manner of their use.
Last edited by mqb2766; 10 months ago
0
reply
By objections, I assume it means "ideas"? or "views?
Last edited by As.1997; 10 months ago
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by As.1997)
By objections, I assume it means ideas?
By objections, I assume it means ideas?
0
reply
(Original post by mqb2766)
Objections about harmful wildlife and people health - first couple of lines.
Objections about harmful wildlife and people health - first couple of lines.
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by As.1997)
Why do they use the word "confused", as it seems pretty clear to me :l
Why do they use the word "confused", as it seems pretty clear to me :l
0
reply
(Original post by mqb2766)
Just a way of expressing the question, I guess.
Just a way of expressing the question, I guess.
0
reply
Report
#10
(Original post by As.1997)
Oh actually, they mentioned "confused objections" to make people lose focus but the main idea here is that the argument doesn't discuss the "manner of use of pesticides" hence why A is wrong. It does mention "sprayed" but there are no discussion or "objections" about it.
Oh actually, they mentioned "confused objections" to make people lose focus but the main idea here is that the argument doesn't discuss the "manner of use of pesticides" hence why A is wrong. It does mention "sprayed" but there are no discussion or "objections" about it.
0
reply
By manner of use, it is referring to "heavy use". Point A is saying instead of disagreeing with heavy use it is disagreeing with the use of pesticides as a whole.
Last edited by As.1997; 10 months ago
0
reply
For B) "The argument contradicts itself" -- Is this wrong because damage to the environment and maximising yield are not opposing ideas and hence they are not contradicting each other.
Opposing ideas would be to say pesticides damage the env and then claim it is also good for the env. Since maximising yield is not necessarily good for the environment, it cannot be a contradiction.
Opposing ideas would be to say pesticides damage the env and then claim it is also good for the env. Since maximising yield is not necessarily good for the environment, it cannot be a contradiction.
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by As.1997)
For B) "The argument contradicts itself" -- Is this wrong because damage to the environment and maximising yield are not opposing ideas and hence they are not contradicting each other.
Opposing ideas would be to say pesticides damage the env and then claim it is also good for the env. Since maximising yield is not necessarily good for the environment, it cannot be a contradiction.
For B) "The argument contradicts itself" -- Is this wrong because damage to the environment and maximising yield are not opposing ideas and hence they are not contradicting each other.
Opposing ideas would be to say pesticides damage the env and then claim it is also good for the env. Since maximising yield is not necessarily good for the environment, it cannot be a contradiction.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
