Q23 - Biologists found that off

[phoebster21]

We do need to explain why the both the P-plankton population is declining and fish species X, Y, and Z are dying. The stimulus begins "biologists found..." -- that's a finding. And the question stem asks us to explain the biologists' findings.

!! makes a lot of sense!
If the stimulus didn't start off with that, and the question just asked us to explain the stimulus, do we need to explain p-plankton?
I guess my question is...
if in the stimulus we have 2 conditions, and the answer choice only addresses one of them, is it automatically out?

I think I was thrown off by the Q stem as well. I think had it said, "which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the sudden increase in XYZ death rates?" Then D might more accurately address that issue, since it states that it "is driving their death rates up even higher."


I have seen many Explain/Resolve questions that DIRECT you to a particular part of the stimulus they want explained, but this one just said, more broadly, please explain the findings. So you have to try to find an answer that addresses all the crap the biologists found.

[hyk1310]

I think that you can say two things are 'connected' if they are both symptoms/effects of the same underlying cause.

On LSAT test day, Marcia experienced both a higher heart rate and sweaty palms. Were those two phenomena connected?

Yes, they were both the result of feeling stressed that she didn't study enough to do well.

However, I think the fact that you are even asking that question indicates that you had your mind geared towards EXPLAINING the wrong thing.

The question stem here asks us to explain the biologists' findings.

Can we consider "biologists believe the two phenomena are connected" to be one of the biologists' findings?

Findings, to me, are facts, not opinions/hypotheses/beliefs.

The first sentence uses the verb "to find", so biologists found that P-plankton is dropping. Additionally, they found that X, Y, and Z are experiencing high death rates.

(B) explains both of those findings.

I think you were thinking of this as a Strengthen the biologists' hypothesis task.

Hope this helps.

Dear Patrick,

In addition to the flaw that this idea doesn't explain why the plankton population is dying out,

could another weakness in the argument D), be that while P-plankton population dropped by 10%, the fish population is showing extraordinarily high death rate, meaning that even if the the death toll of the plankton would partially explain for the decrease, it couldn't account for the extraordinarily high death rate in the fish population? To me, a 10% decrease in the food supply doesn't seem to indicate, for example, a 40% decrease in the fish population.

[WesleyC316]

Such a weird question. I read through the stimulus over and over and saw no discrepancy at all.