Q24 - Ringtail opossums are an Australian

[romanmuffin]

I picked D, believing that it boosted the argument. But now I am seeing that it is merely a premise booster. I can now see why E is correct in that it eliminates the possibility that the sample size of opossums raised in captivity and released into the wild is unrepresentative of the whole opossum population.

Question: does D strengthen the argument at all? I know E is better because the question asks which "one most strongly supports" but I would like to know if D can be considered a strengthener.

[bbirdwell]

We're trying to strengthen the conclusion:
Ringtails are endangered by non-native predators.

(D) does nothing for us in this regard.

[slimjimsquinn]

I originally picked C) ringtails in captivity were fed similar diets to those in the wild. Can you tell me why this is wrong?

What I missed, I think, is the flaw that makes those orphaned and released representative of the entire opossum population.

I see now that E)addresses that flaw. Let me just check my reasoning here: If ringtails of the wild defend themselves more than those in captivity (who've lived in predator-free comfort), this gives us an alternate cause for 75% of the released ones dying. Their captivity made their more vulnerable towards predation; this vulnerability may not be present amongst the population as a whole. Is this thinking correct?

I'd still love a reason for why C is wrong.

Thanks!

[shirando21]

I was looking for an explanation for C too.
Then I. Found the conclusion says it was not because of the scarcity of food in wild. C still does not eliminate the possibility that there are not enough food. That's why it does not strengthen the argument.

Let me know if you would agree

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Let's start with the argument core. The argument concludes that the native ringtail opossum population is endangered, not by a lack of food, but by non-native predator species. Why? Well, because 75% of a group of opossums raised in captivity and released into the wild were killed by foxes (a non-native predator species).

So what is this argument assuming? It assumes that the group of opossums that were raised in captivity were similar to the ones raised in the wild - answer choice (E) provides this connection.

Incorrect Answers
(A) weakens the argument by limiting the number of non-native predator species - though only slightly. There could be only one non-native predator species (foxes) that are tremendously devastating to opossums.
(B) weakens the argument by limiting the success of foxes and therefore the likelihood that foxes are part of the explanation for the dwindling number of opossums.
(C) would support the claim that the ringtail opossums that were bread in captivity did not have a hard time adjusting to the food available to them in the wild once they were released. But we already know that the ringtail opossums born in captivity were killed by foxes.
(D) leaves open the possibility that the opossums born in the wild were endangered because of food competition from species native to Australia that compete for food with opossums. Also, even if there are few species not native to Australia that compete with opossums, those few species could have been the competition that pushed opossums into endangered status.

[WaltGrace1983]

(C) would support the claim that the ringtail opossums that were bread in captivity did not have a hard time adjusting to the food available to them in the wild once they were released. But we already know that the ringtail opossums born in captivity were killed by foxes.

So would you say that (C) strengthens one part of the conclusion but not really the most important part - the explanation? I thought (C) was a bit tempting but (E) is clearly better because it strengthens the "meat" of the conclusion you could say. What do you think?

[maryadkins]

I think that works!

[Mab6q]

When the author says that the opossums did not develop natural diseases, does he mean that all possums or just those raised in captivity?

And E is ruling out the possibility that the other opossums in the wild developed some ability to fight off the foxes that the opossums in the wild did not develop. If wild ones were better at fighting off foxes, then it might show that growing in captivity caused their death, not the natural defenses?

Is that correct?

[maryadkins]

When the author says that the opossums did not develop natural diseases, does he mean that all possums or just those raised in captivity?

And E is ruling out the possibility that the other opossums in the wild developed some ability to fight off the foxes that the opossums in the wild did not develop. If wild ones were better at fighting off foxes, then it might show that growing in captivity caused their death, not the natural defenses?

Is that correct?

It's natural DEFENSES...and yes, it means all of them. It doesn't specify that it just means the ones in captivity.

And you're correct if you change what you wrote to: And E is ruling out the possibility that the other opossums in the wild developed some ability to fight off the foxes that the opossums NOT in the wild did not develop.

[cyt5015]

I think the word "diet" in answer C is kind of misleading. If we assume "diet" means " the kind of food they have been feed upon", then answer C is irrelevant. However, if we assume it means "the kind and the amount", then it does somehow rule out the possibility of being scarcity of food in wild, which supports one of the conclusion that the population was endangered not by a scarcity of food, because those opossums raised in captivity have survived based on a similar type and amount of food! Is that a concern we need to address, or I just overthink?

[maryadkins]

It's a good way of thinking — it's LSAT thinking!

It just doesn't matter here since we know they were killed by foxes, which has made the food point moot. BUT if the food point weren't moot, you'd definitely want to be analyzing what "diet" means, what it does and does include, and keeping an eye out for any term shifts.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

So my understanding is that D is wrong because it pertains to food scarcity, which plays no role in the evidence as the main point of the stimulus explicitly states that the endangerment of the species is attributable to predators not native to the continent and not food scarcity.

[oyxy1111]

I think the word "diet" in answer C is kind of misleading. If we assume "diet" means " the kind of food they have been feed upon", then answer C is irrelevant. However, if we assume it means "the kind and the amount", then it does somehow rule out the possibility of being scarcity of food in wild, which supports one of the conclusion that the population was endangered not by a scarcity of food, because those opossums raised in captivity have survived based on a similar type and amount of food! Is that a concern we need to address, or I just overthink?

Even if they survived in captivity, they could still die of a scarcity of food in the wild. Maybe living in the wild ,which involves more activities, requires more food. So you really do need to test the necessary food level in the wild. Unfortunately ringtail opossums did not have the chance - they had been hunted by foxes.

[StratosM31]

(C) does strengthen the argument, but EXTREMELY SLIGHTLY!

It only eliminates a reason why the study would be flawed in case the outcome was that the opossums died out of hunger. But that's it, (E) is 1000 times stronger!

[Emmeline Ndongue]

(C) does strengthen the argument, but EXTREMELY SLIGHTLY!

It only eliminates a reason why the study would be flawed in case the outcome was that the opossums died out of hunger. But that's it, (E) is 1000 times stronger!

I beg to differ. Even if the captive opossums don't have a problem with the food they eat when released to the wild, that doesn't mean that there's enough food for them, food scarcity could've still been a problem for all opossums. This doesn't block the alternative explanations that the argument claimed wrong.