Q11 - A distemper virus has caused

[b91302310]

I don't understand why (A) supports the argument. It mentions that other species also experienced drops in population. However, it does not mean that the drops are the results of the population. Or, because other answers are obviously not supportive,we could only make such inferernce from (A) to make it most strongly support the argument?

Could anyone explain it?

Thanks.

[bbirdwell]

This is not a great question, but you're right -- a focus on process of elimination is a big help.

We are trying to strengthen the idea that there must be something more than the virus alone causing the deaths of the seals. Pollution is offered as one potential contributor.

(A) suggests that other species in the same area also experienced losses. This adds to the idea that pollution could have been a factor.

(B) does not affect the argument. So what if these countries are "taking the lead" in prevention? This says nothing about whether there were other factors involved in the seals' deaths.

(C) is not even close.

(D) is irrelevant.

(E) weakens! Be careful here. This choice sounds appealing, but it actually weakens the conclusion by offering more evidence that the virus alone could have been especially harmful to the seals.

[alexg89]

Will a question like this appear on a modern LSAT? I felt like answer choice A was worthless. Although I can see how you can choose it from eliminating the others, I still feel like a correct answer should have more logic to it then that.

[Incandenza]

I picked answer (C) initially because I thought that it could reasonably be implied that the fish being used for human consumption were being obtained by humans/machines, and that we could be polluting the waters by our mere presence.

After 5 minutes of anger and confusion (I reallythought I had the question beat after crossing out (E)) I read the answer choices again.

First, answer choice (C) says: "For many years..." while (A) is a lot more precise "...during the last ten years..." Because we don't know how many years is "many", it's harder to boost the argument.

Also, the conclusion states: "clearly the severe pollution of the North Sea waters..." No where does it say the pollution was caused by humans （although I'd say 99% of people would assume it was humans.) Perhaps the pollution came from somewhere else in nature. Maybe a UFO landed in the North Sea, spilling alien gunk all over those poor critters.

All in all, this question was quite a low blow, even by LSAC standards.

[nthakka]

B, C, and D can be eliminated fairly quickly, as they have no relevance to the conclusion that pollution (or something else) is somehow connected to the disappearance of the seals.

(E) gives reason to believe that the seals aren't disappearing due to pollution or some other reason, but rather that they were simply caught off guard by the virus. It wasn't pollution that weakened their immune system, just that they had no resistance to the virus b/c it was their first time exposed to it. This weakens the purported causal relationship.

(A) Shows that the effect in an alternate case (drop in population) coincided with the cause put forward (pollution). This strengthens the relationship because it shows that the problem occurred in shellfish/seabirds, and isn't restricted to just seals. Correlation can strengthen a claim of causation, but CANNOT prove it. This answer choice, ever so slightly, adds credibility to the idea that pollution or something else (aside from the virus) could have had an effect on the sudden drop in seal population.

[WaltGrace1983]

I'm a bit surprised that many of you guys don't like this question. I think it makes very good sense! (A) shows that other fish in the same exact area are also have drops in population. Thus, we may infer (though, as mentioned, definitely not PROVE) that there is something wrong with the water or the area. This "something wrong" could definitely be pollution.

As for (B), I think it might actually weaken the argument a bit by showing that there are strides taken against pollution in the North Sea. If I said, "The pollution of the Pacific Ocean is what is causing seabirds in San Francisco to die" and you said, "No! The U.S. is fighting off pollution in the Pacific Ocean by doing X, Y, and Z." Now it definitely wouldn't PROVE anything - all I would have to say is that the U.S.'s efforts are not sufficient - but it would still weaken the idea that pollution is actually the contributor.

(C) and (D), in my opinion, are laughably out of scope. Stick to the core, folks!

As already stated, (E) is a slight weakener.

[jones.mchandler]

I'm a bit surprised that many of you guys don't like this question. I think it makes very good sense! (A) shows that other fish in the same exact area are also have drops in population. Thus, we may infer (though, as mentioned, definitely not PROVE) that there is something wrong with the water or the area. This "something wrong" could definitely be pollution.
.

I think answer choice A is tenuous at best, and a near impossible logical leap at worst.

So what if other fish in the area have also experienced steep drops in population during the same time as the seals? Maybe a certain predator that eats those types of fish has exploded in population. Maybe over fishing is occurring. There is every reason to not think that A is correct.

The more egregious error here is the fact that A includes "species of shellfish AND seabirds." So not only do we have to infer that pollution is also effecting the population of shellfish, but we also have to infer the SEABIRDS are being drastically effected by this pollution.

The argument there would be something like (I guess): seabirds depend on food from the sea-->pollution is shrinking their potential food sources-->population is thus declining.

That's quite a bit of gap filling to arrive at the correct answer.

[WaltGrace1983]

I think answer choice A is tenuous at best, and a near impossible logical leap at worst.

So what if other fish in the area have also experienced steep drops in population during the same time as the seals? Maybe a certain predator that eats those types of fish has exploded in population. Maybe over fishing is occurring. There is every reason to not think that A is correct.

You're totally right. It may very well be a predator that eats those types of fish. It may very well be over fishing. HOWEVER, we are not here to PROVE the conclusion. We are here to make the conclusion more supported given the premises. (A) hinges on the idea that these seabirds, shellfish, and seals all share a common environment: the North Sea. The argument concludes that, because the population of seals is dropping, it MUST be the pollution in the North Sea. How can we support this? We can support this by either showing that (1) it was not something else that caused a dramatic decrease in seal population or (2), realizing that pollution would affect all of the marine life and not JUST the seals, we could also show that other forms of marine life are suffering too. Does (A) prove the conclusion? No. Does it strengthen it? Yes.

(B) weakens by showing that it is less likely to be pollution
(C) if we assume that seals = fish then this weakens too by showing that it is NOT pollution but rather fishing or, if we assume that seals ~= fish, this is just plain out of scope.
(D) out of scope. We don't care about differentiating the seals
(E) weakens by showing it is not pollution but rather the virus.

As you can see, the rest of the answers are so wrong its not even funny.

The more egregious error here is the fact that A includes "species of shellfish AND seabirds." So not only do we have to infer that pollution is also effecting the population of shellfish, but we also have to infer the SEABIRDS are being drastically effected by this pollution.

The argument there would be something like (I guess): seabirds depend on food from the sea-->pollution is shrinking their potential food sources-->population is thus declining.

That's quite a bit of gap filling to arrive at the correct answer.

The fact that its shellfish AND seabirds actually makes (A) even stronger! Why? It widens the scope of marine life and shows that it is more likely to be something in the environment (pollution) than something specific to shellfish or seals.

[jones.mchandler]

Well, this caused me to google seabirds to see what their ecosystem actually consists of, in concrete terms. And yes, they share the same ecosystem as seals. The wiki entry actually talks about seabirds and their food sources in the North Sea.

Since A is correct, I'm fighting a losing battle here. However, it seems to me that it does require more work to make the correct answer work for this question than is typically the case for strengthen/weaken questions. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. That is my main criticism--sure A strengthens the argument, but it is so coincidental that it strikes me as just barely making the any stronger.

So it goes.

[WaltGrace1983]

Well, this caused me to google seabirds to see what their ecosystem actually consists of, in concrete terms. And yes, they share the same ecosystem as seals. The wiki entry actually talks about seabirds and their food sources in the North Sea.

Since A is correct, I'm fighting a losing battle here. However, it seems to me that it does require more work to make the correct answer work for this question than is typically the case for strengthen/weaken questions. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. That is my main criticism--sure A strengthens the argument, but it is so coincidental that it strikes me as just barely making the any stronger.

So it goes.

Maybe. Perhaps you are thinking about it in too specific of terms. We don't need to know ANYTHING about these seabirds and such other than that they have a habitat in the North Sea. That's it! Imagine this argument...

"New York city is hazardous to people's health! The Manhattan instructors are all getting sick and Noah has a terrible case of the swine flu! It's gotta be something to do with NYC where they all live!"

If I said, "All the people who work at NYU and Columbia are also getting sick!" Wouldn't you believe my argument more? I'd think yes. Why? Because we KNOW that there is something common between the Manhattan instructors and those at NYU/Columbia: they all work in NYC! Thus, it is easier to say that it actually IS something to do with NYC.

We do this all the time in real life. Has your whole family ever gotten sick after eating at a restaurant? What did you do in that situation? Yep. You blamed the restaurant.

How about that?

[Mab6q]

Let me address an issue I have with this question and maybe someone can provide some guidance.

On my first go at this question, I chose A, because it was the only AC left. On the review, I justified E over A. Here's why:

Virus is normally latent, and we had a steep drop in pop


Conclusion: It must have been the pollution which caused the immune system to be weakened, so the explanation rests there.

A: would be wrong on 95% of strengthening questions if you ask me. It has not direct impact on the reasoning by itself; one has to assume that it was the severe pollution, and not something else. It might very well be the disease itself caused the steep drop in these animals as well. Regardless we don't know so it's a bad answer, but better than B, C and D for sure.

Now, let's look at E. It's a tricky answer like A, in my opinion. We can't automatically assume that it weakens. Why? Well it tells us that the distemper caused by the virus was new and so the population could not handle it. Why did we get this new distemper disease? Just as we have to make assumptions for A, it is very reasonable to assume that the pollution weakened the immune system which allowed the new distemper disease to be successful. I kept running this situation through my mind while doing this question and it just seemed like the uncertainty meant that we could go either way.

I may be going too far here, but this truly is a bad question. Any thoughts.

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm not sure where you're getting the freedom to ask questions like "well, where did the distemper come from? maybe it came from pollution?"

(E) says that the distemper was caused by the virus. Which virus? The normally latent virus.

So we don't have freedom to speculate alternative causes for the distemper.

It's confusing to sort out what is meant by distemper ... is it a symptom or an actual disease?

When you say "the distemper caused by the virus" it sounds like distemper is the symptom and the virus is the underlying cause.

However, the sentence actually says "the distemper caused by the virus was a disease", so it's apparently a disease caused by a virus. Where's an MCAT student when you need her?

Anyway, (E) definitely seems to me to weaken because it is explaining precisely how this normally latent virus could, on its own, have suddenly had such a profound impact on the seal population.

I sympathize with everyone hating on this question, but keep in mind that the question stem asks us to support the explanation, not THE REASONING, or THE ARGUMENT.

We don't like (A) since it has nothing to do with an argument core or assumptions.

We're really just trying to add some credibility to a claim that the severe pollution of the North Sea waters was instrumental in causing the dramatic die-off of seals.

I do agree that (A) sucks rocks. But it does add SOME circumstantial corroboration to the story. If multiple species in the North Sea are having dramatic die-offs, it's plausible that a condition that affects the entire environment might be contributing to all of the die-offs.

[Mab6q]

I'm not sure where you're getting the freedom to ask questions like "well, where did the distemper come from? maybe it came from pollution?"

(E) says that the distemper was caused by the virus. Which virus? The normally latent virus.

So we don't have freedom to speculate alternative causes for the distemper.

It's confusing to sort out what is meant by distemper ... is it a symptom or an actual disease?

When you say "the distemper caused by the virus" it sounds like distemper is the symptom and the virus is the underlying cause.

However, the sentence actually says "the distemper caused by the virus was a disease", so it's apparently a disease caused by a virus. Where's an MCAT student when you need her?

Anyway, (E) definitely seems to me to weaken because it is explaining precisely how this normally latent virus could, on its own, have suddenly had such a profound impact on the seal population.

I sympathize with everyone hating on this question, but keep in mind that the question stem asks us to support the explanation, not THE REASONING, or THE ARGUMENT.

We don't like (A) since it has nothing to do with an argument core or assumptions.

We're really just trying to add some credibility to a claim that the severe pollution of the North Sea waters was instrumental in causing the dramatic die-off of seals.

I do agree that (A) sucks rocks. But it does add SOME circumstantial corroboration to the story. If multiple species in the North Sea are having dramatic die-offs, it's plausible that a condition that affects the entire environment might be contributing to all of the die-offs.

Thanks Patrick, that actually makes a lot of sense.