« on: November 30, 2007, 09:01:40 PM »
The key parts of the stimulis, given the question, are that forest fires help forests and that our attempts to stop them are short sighted and ill advised. This only follows if people are trying to stop them to help the forest. There are other reasons one might try to stop a forest fire, such as lives or property. The passage doesn't demonstrate that stopping forest fires for this reason is ill advised, only that it will hurt the forest. Therefore, it will follow if the nly reason we do it is for the sake of the fire.
Does this make sense?
For break, Good energy bars (not protein bars). Also a piece of fruit. An apple, an orange, a peach, or a banana and a small amount of water.
For breakfast, oatmeal is filled with good carbs that are easily and quickly converted to ATP (Adenosine triphosphate) in the Krebs cycle.
ATP = instantly available energy that is close to the end of the biochemical cycle.
ATP transports chemical energy within cells for metabolism.
thanks for your response. but doesnt it only say it REQUIRES it, rather than its the ONLY?
new age philosopher: nature evolves organically and nonlinearly. furthermore, it can best be understood as a whole; its parts are so interconnected that none could exist without support from others. therefore, attaining the best possible understanding of nature requires an organic, holistic, nonlinear way of reasoning of science, which proceeds through experiments on deliberately isolated parts of nature.
the reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that...
B. overlookds the possibility that the overall structure of a phenomenon is not always identical to the overall structure of the reasoning that people do about that phenemenon
E. takes for granted that a phenomenon that can best be understood as having certain properties can best be understood only through reasoning that shares those properties
cr is e, but can anybody tell me why b is incorrect? i also don't see how e is correct because i don't see where the stimulus claims that it can best be understood ONLY through reasoning that shares those properties
thanks in advance