Q23 - Garbage dumps do not harm wildlife

[syed_s_hus]

Can someone explain this question? I narrowed it down to A and C and ultimately chose A as my answer. I do not quite understand how D is correct. Thank you in advance.

[a3friedm]

This question is really tricky but also really cool.

The stimulus basically says, if the land-reclamation program statistics are accurate the program was a success. Senator Armand who is a mathematician and a woman of indisputable brilliance, claims the program was not successful. The conclusion is that the figures cannot have been accurate.


The flaw in reasoning here is an inappropriate appeal to authority. Being a distinguished mathematician, a senator, and brilliant does not guarantee she is qualified to have authority over whether or not the program was successful.

(A) Has a couple problems, there is a time issue with the argument ie. Albert knowing where the car keys were yesterday, does not guarantee he knows where they are today. Not the flaw were looking for, we can throw it out

(B) Gloria is a qualified authority as to whether or not she was given an oppurtunity to act in class, so we can get rid of this.

(C) This answer choice is really tempting. Same structure as the stimulus, however is a cardiopulmonary specialist an expert on breathing? Let's hold on to it

(D) Has an incorrect reversal, not what were looking for

(E) Exactly what we want. Is a bicycle engineering expert capable of guaranteeing the outcome of a race? Same flaw.

hope this helped!

[patrice.antoine]

To the above poster, i think you reference the wrong question. This question is about baboons.

Can an instructor please explain how answer choice (A) casts doubt on the argument and (D) does not. Thanks!

[sumukh09]

Disclaimer: I am not an instructor so take my explanation with a grain of salt until one confirms or denies it

I think A is wrong because it is inconsistent with the stimulus' conclusion that garbage dumps do not harm wildlife. If one specie of baboons do not feed on the garbage dumps then that gives a reason to believe that the reason they don't feed on the garbage dumps is because they'd be negatively affected if they did so. Maybe the species that do feed on the dumps have some physiological characteristic that makes them immune to the bacteria (assuming it's bacteria that would harm the baboons) present in garbage dumps. Further, it's irrelevant that the baboons are a different species - what matters is there are baboons that feed on the garbage dumps.


D) doesn't cast doubt on the argument because how can we say that garbage dumps do not harm wildlife if the hyenas that live near there have doubled in population? This would strengthen the argument if anything.

[theanswer21324]

Hi

I'm still a bit confused by #23.

It seems like the argument is: Baboons that eat garbage mature faster than those that don't --> Garbage does not harm wildlife

To that end, I'm confused why (D) is the right answer. I'm not sure why (A) would weaken the argument because it does not seem to affect the argument in any clear way. B, C, and E all show that there is some adverse affect to baboons that result from the garbage being dumped there, but what about (A)? If this is true, maybe the species that eats garbage was more likely to mature faster and have more offspring in the first place. But I don't see how that would weaken the conclusion about garbage harming the wildlife.

On the other hand, I can see how (D) would cast doubt on the argument without making as many assumptions as (A). For one thing, the unregulated garbage landfills are changing the ecosystem by drawing hyenas (this could be because the hyenas would normally never have gone to that area in the first place, or because, by eating the garbage, the hyenas have disrupted in the food chain in some other way). While it is great that hyenas are having a feast now, it seems like this human intervention has changed in the landscae in a big way that harms the wildlife by altering what would not have occurred naturally otherwise

[fmuirhea]

I think there's a bit of confusion surrounding how (A) does in fact weaken. The important thing to focus on here is the appeal to comparison. We compare two groups:

1. baboons who eat garbage and live a long time/produce many offspring
2. baboons who don't eat garbage and don't live as long/produce fewer offspring

If we knew that these groups were absolutely identical in every way except for their garbage-eating tendencies, then the conclusion would be better. This is, in fact, what the argument assumes: that garbage-eating is the only (or, at least, the only important) differentiating factor between the two groups of baboons. (A) claims that this is not the case, and thus weakens the argument by suggesting that the comparison that forms the basis of the evidence is not valid.

(A) states that the baboons are different species. We can't speculate on the potential causal influence of garbage-eating unless we know the expected outcome without garbage-eating. Maybe the difference in lifespan/offspring production is simply down to the fact that they're different, and has nothing whatsoever to do with garbage. Or, maybe the garbage-eaters would live even longer if they stopped eating garbage. We don't know for sure, because we don't have a control group to compare against. (The argument assumes that the second group is the control group, and (A) attacks the truth of that assumption.) Invalidating the comparison puts us back at square one, with no base group to compare against, and thus no real conclusion to make one way or the other.



Edit: When weakening an argument, you don't have to go so far as to suggest/prove the argument gets it backward, although that would certainly fall under the umbrella of weakening. (B), (C), and (E) all do just that - they suggest that eating garbage does in fact harm wildlife, which is the opposite of the conclusion on offer. This type of weakener is easier to spot.

(A) doesn't weaken in the same way - it doesn't give us reason to believe garbage harms wildlife - but it nevertheless weakens in a more subtle fashion. It invalidates the evidence, and when you have no evidence, you cannot make a conclusion. So, with (A) added to the mix, we cannot conclude one way or the other whether garbage is detrimental.

[theanswer21324]

Wow - thanks for the great response! Thanks for taking the time to write out such a thoughtful reply

[aamatsui]

I don't think this has been said yet, so here it goes:

(d) is correct because "Who says the doubling of Hyenas are a bad thing?" Maybe the region has had a substantial Hyena shortage and the doubling of populations is actually a good thing!

The reason this answer choice is tricky, is because it plays on our notion of the Hyena being an evil animal, scavenging and hurting lion cubs (cue lion king theme song)

Our minds (at least mine did) think " eww double the hyena's? that should harm wildlife!" However, this is an unsupported assumption.

[jeanlouisf]

Answer "A" is wrong -- it would weaken the argument--because the stimulus states that "Garbage dumps do not harm wildlife". Baboons were merely used as a supporting example to the claim.

If we stuck answer A into the premise it would say that the ones that use the reserve as a food source mature faster and have more offspring because they "are of a different species from those [baboon] that do not". That destroys the argument since it was stated that the dumps do not harm wildlife; all would be sufficient here. If the original argument is true, then no distinction should be drawn about an animals physiological qualities or lack thereof. Answer A would inturn the weaken it because now it can be said that the dumps hurt some wildlife.


"C" is correct because if we say " Garbage dumps do not harm wildlife; the population of hyenas that live near...doubled in the last two years". This strengthens the conclusion that Garbage dumps are but harming wildlife.