Q16 - hares and sunspots

[cvoldstad]

I was a little stumped by this question even upon review, so going to write my thoughts about why the right answer is right but would love some feedback!

The argument: In the Lake Champlain area, the populations of hares and their predators behave cyclically; when one increases the other declines which causes the other to decline and in turn the former to increase etc. BUT their predatory/prey relationship isn't the only explanation for the cyclical nature of their population shifts. Because Hare population is correlated with sunspot activity that activity must be a causal factor as well.

Question stem: Each of the following, if true supports the zoologists reasoning EXCEPT
- so we are looking for an answer that does NOT tell us that susnpot activity has a causal relationship with hare population


A (incorrect) this links sunspot activity in with the cycle of causation mentioned- thus it does support the reasoning- change in sunspot DOES correspond to change in populations

B (correct) weather patterns that affect populations can occur with our without sunspots. Doesn't seem to tell us much
--- I am confused about how this does not support his reasoning? It doesn't' mean that sunspot activity is necessarily not a factor, just says there may be an additional factor as well?

C (incorrect): Like A, sunspot activity exacerbates the predator/prey cycle and thus is a source of causation

D (incorrect) This essentially just restates the conclusion

E (incorrect) Again sunspot activity contributes to population shifts (through its effect on Hares diets)


Could someone please help me with how to choose B?

[magic.imango]

I think (B) is the correct answer because it weakens the claim that sunspots and the hare's population cycle are "well correlated". If local weather patterns that can affect the populations occur with or without sunspot activity, then when there is no sunspot activity and a storm comes and the hares' population declines, then you have a situation in which the population cycle has changed but the sunspot is not a casual factor.

I'm still not 100% sure as I'm still mulling over this one myself. I hope someone else can chime in.

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your posts!

One tricky aspect of this question is that the argument core is buried in background information. The key indicator words here are “yet” and “since.” “Yet” indicates a pivot into the argument and “since” gives the premise; **this is all of the important information**!

Here’s the pared-down argument core:

The hare population is correlated with the regular cycle of sunspot activity
-->
That activity is probably a causal factor as well.

The argument makes a classic causation / correlation error. It even uses the words causation and correlation

The wrong answer choices will SUPPORT the causal claim made by the author. The right answer will be IREELEVANT or will WEAKEN the causal claim.

(A) and (C) suggest that sunspot activity impacts predator behavior. Predator behavior in turn impacts the hare population. These answer choices SUPPORT the claim.
(B) Is IRRELEVANT. It talks about weather patterns that are not related to sunspots. (B) is correct.
(D) Strengthens the correlation by suggesting that the intensity of the sunspots relates to hare populations.
(E) Implies that sunspots and vegetation go hand-in-hand; vegetation impacts hare population. This choice SUPPORTS the claim.

[andrewgong01]

Thanks for your posts!

One tricky aspect of this question is that the argument core is buried in background information. The key indicator words here are “yet” and “since.” “Yet” indicates a pivot into the argument and “since” gives the premise; **this is all of the important information**!

Here’s the pared-down argument core:

The hare population is correlated with the regular cycle of sunspot activity
-->
That activity is probably a causal factor as well.

The argument makes a classic causation / correlation error. It even uses the words causation and correlation

The wrong answer choices will SUPPORT the causal claim made by the author. The right answer will be IREELEVANT or will WEAKEN the causal claim.

(A) and (C) suggest that sunspot activity impacts predator behavior. Predator behavior in turn impacts the hare population. These answer choices SUPPORT the claim.
(B) Is IRRELEVANT. It talks about weather patterns that are not related to sunspots. (B) is correct.
(D) Strengthens the correlation by suggesting that the intensity of the sunspots relates to hare populations.
(E) Implies that sunspots and vegetation go hand-in-hand; vegetation impacts hare population. This choice SUPPORTS the claim.

I am not seeing why "B" is irrelevant. We are saying there is a correlation therefore it is a causation. Isn't B supporting this though because it says weather patterns in the presence of sunspot activity can still affect the population and hence it strengthens the argument?

My other problem with this problem is with Choice C because I chose "C" since it, if anything, weakens the claim of causality by pointing out yes there is a correlation but it is not causation because sunlight correlates with predator hunting. In turn, this is what is actually causing the correlation between sunspots and the hare population.

[ohthatpatrick]

To support the idea that X is a causal difference-maker, we want to see that there is a DIFFERENCE between X being present and X being absent.

(B) identifies a potential cause of population change (local weather patterns), and then says that it can occur whether sunspots are present or absent.

That sounds like "even if" = irrelevance.

If I say
"LR Workshops that can affect students' LSAT scores can occur both in the presence of a Republican President and in its absence", then would you be likely to think that
"A Republican President is probably a causal factor in affecting students' LSAT scores"?

In terms of (C), you're mad at it because it makes the sunspot thing an INDIRECT, rather than DIRECT, causal factor.

But it's still a causal factor.

If a calendar reminder you set for your LR workshop helped you to remember to attend the workshop, then your calendar reminder was a causal factor involved in your improved LR score.

Remember, the author says "Yet these facts alone cannot explain" ... so (C) is helping out the facts, not replacing them. Because sunspots would affect most of the Earth, it helps to explain why we see the same hare cycle everywhere: because sunspots "put their thumb on the scale" everywhere and help predators chase those hares into the deep forest.