Q25 - New evidence indicates that recent property developeme

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The recent property development on the edge of a national park has not adversely affected the wildlife in the park.
Evidence: The amount of wildlife in the park has actually increased in the 10 yrs the property development has been around. And the park is well equipped to deal with this uptick in wildlife.

Answer Anticipation:
I would try to think through the lens of possible objections. How could we argue that the property development HAS adversely affected wildlife? The only info we know about is the AMOUNT of the wildlife. What about the diversity of the wildlife (has it suffered)? What about the health/life span of the wildlife? We also only deal with whether the park has enough resources to deal with the uptick in wildlife, but maybe there are other problems created from the uptick (disease? breeding problems? social issues?). A correct answer will potentially make us feel better about one of these other lines of possible objection.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This could work. We might have worried that there were MORE animals, but LESS biodiversity. But this answer is saying that we still have the same biodiversity.

(B) This leans toward weakening. If the more distant survey was taken in the winter, we might have two surveys that aren't fair to compare with each other.

(C) This tells us that the park now has more money/resources to deal with its increased wildlife population, because it's old budget wouldn't have sufficed. This speaks too much to budget, and too little to whether the park's wildlife is adversely affected. And it almost has a negative feel, like "the property development caused such an influx of animals that we had to aggrandize our budget".

(D) This weakens, in a way that would be similar to how (B) could potentially weaken. This makes our most recent survey data an unfair comparison for the previous survey data.

(E) Again, this weakens by showing that the two surveys are not really fair to compare.

Takeaway/Pattern: Pretty tough argument core to decipher, and the correct answer probably means very little to people UNLESS they first took the time to think through potential objections, such as "maybe it's more wildlife total but we actually LOST certain species!". Luckily, three of the five answers (B, D, and E) are all weaken ideas that make the two surveys less fair to compare.

#officialexplanation

[s.atrmachin3]

I'm lost here. I don't see an argument.

The only piece that I can see as potentially being the conclusion is "On the contrary", yet everything that follows seems to be consistent with the only sentence that precedes that phrase.

Please help.

Lance

[maryadkins]

The argument here is supporting the first sentence. The core is:

the amount of wildlife has increased since the development went up

+

the park can support its current wildlife

-->

development hasn't had a bad effect on wildlife

But what does "amount of wildlife" mean? What if some species have gone way down in population while others have gone up—would that mean that there has been NO adverse effect? No. There would be an adverse effect—it would just be disguised.

(A) gets at this. If the first, earlier survey showed fewer numbers of SPECIES as well, that solves that issue. (A) is correct.

As for the others:

(B) weakens.

(C) isn't relevant. We're talking about now.

(D) also weakens. This would mean populations have likely gone down.

(E) likewise weakens.

[s.atrmachin3]

Thanks, Mary.

After reviewing the problem today, I was able to make sense of the argument core by understanding "on the contrary" to be the conclusion, in essence saying that "development has helped park wildlife".

If that is not a correct interpretation, please advise. That "on the contrary" is very confusing.

More importantly though, I don't really see how (A) helps solve the issue.

When I considered your response, I imagined the following scenario:

The old survey shows 100 animals divided evenly among 10 species ::: The new survey shows simply 150 animals, an increase in population of 50.

Here we arrive at the gap and possibility of disguise you mentioned.

Then I find out that the new survey also showed there were 15 species in the park.

How how does that get us closer?

Considering scenario's where:

A) The 10 old species now have 3 members each, and the 5 new species have 24 members each, or

B) Six of the original 10 species are gone completely and we simply have 11 brand new species,

... I don't see how the knowledge that we have more species helps to strengthen the argument in the area in which it was originally lacking.

Any additional help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Lance

[maryadkins]

Sure. You could have eliminated some species but added more than you eliminated. But that also makes it hard to say that it adversely affected wildlife because it added more species than it took away! How is that bad? Species are growing in number.

(A) doesn't make the argument perfect. But it moves us closer. It strengthens it.

[pewals13]

What if there were wild horses that used to graze in the area and now there are only huge numbers are pidgeons, vultures, and rats that eat the trash the new development dumps into the reserve? (A) eliminates this line of attack against the conclusion.

[maryadkins]

What if there were wild horses that used to graze in the area and now there are only huge numbers are pidgeons, vultures, and rats that eat the trash the new development dumps into the reserve? (A) eliminates this line of attack against the conclusion.

I suppose you're presuming pigeons, vultures and rats are not "wildlife" but horses are in this scenario? It's a highly visual emotional appeal, but the question doesn't create a hierarchy of species in this question so best refrain from doing so, yourself.

[pewals13]

Thanks for your response!

I was just using the visual imagery to emphasize the point that the quantity of wildlife increasing does not necessarily mean there has been no wildlife adversely affected (as the conclusion asserts).

So there could have been a major increase in the number of panda bears that resulted in a net increase in wildlife even though swans in the area were decimated.

(A) tells us that is not the case thereby making the conclusion more likely

Am I on the right track?

[maryadkins]

Oh yes, right!

[maryadkins]

But the previous poster noted that a species could have been eliminated as long as another one emerged in its place, so maybe not. Like, swans could have been decimated but another species emerged. (A) does NOT get rid of that possibility because it just tells us that the same number of species were found each time, not what those species WERE. So you're on the right track, basically, with this very nuanced caveat.

[einuoa]

Hi,

I understand why A is correct and this is directed to Mary.

Could you explain why E is a weakening answer? It seems more irrelevant as a premise booster in that it gave more information on why the park's resources can support its current wildlife.

I saw this answer choice as more of a stengthener more than a weakener.

Thanks!

[maryadkins]

I see your point! Interestingly, it looks like I was thinking of "wildlife" solely as animals, not plants! In which case, (E) would be a weakener because it would suggest the survey was including plant life and counting it as "wildlife." But if wildlife includes plants, which I agree with you it does, then (E) is just a premise booster, as you suggest. Good catch, thanks for pointing that out. I'm a plant hater apparently, or at least I was in 2014.

[haeeunjee]

But the previous poster noted that a species could have been eliminated as long as another one emerged in its place, so maybe not. Like, swans could have been decimated but another species emerged. (A) does NOT get rid of that possibility because it just tells us that the same number of species were found each time, not what those species WERE. So you're on the right track, basically, with this very nuanced caveat.

I actually think the answer choice DID say that the same species existed from the last survey to the most recent survey. The exact wording is "both surveys found the same species of animals in the park." NOT "both surveys found the same NUMBER of species of animals in the park."

Thus, (A) is a stronger Strengthener than we gave it credit. Swans did not get decimated and replaced by zebras. The two surveys showed the same species, with each species showcasing greater numbers.

[renata.gomez]

I'm having trouble understanding the core. I believe the conclusion is that the park has been adversely affected. But how does having more of the same species when it can be supported from the resources adversely affect the park?

I would very greatly appreciate your help!

[syp]

Can someone please provide more details as to why B is incorrect? Thanks.

[YT]

Can someone please provide more details as to why B is incorrect? Thanks.

My line of reasoning: (B) is a weakener. Because if summer is the season when the park's diversity is at its greatest, it makes the credit of the improvement in the recent survey less likely to go to the recent property development, as it provides an alternative explanation for the improvement. Basically, we could think that actually, the recent property development has harmed the park's wildlife, but it wasn't apparent in that survey just because summer's diversity-increasing effect was in play.

[syp]

Can someone please provide more details as to why B is incorrect? Thanks.

My line of reasoning: (B) is a weakener. Because if summer is the season when the park's diversity is at its greatest, it makes the credit of the improvement in the recent survey less likely to go to the recent property development, as it provides an alternative explanation for the improvement. Basically, we could think that actually, the recent property development has harmed the park's wildlife, but it wasn't apparent in that survey just because summer's diversity-increasing effect was in play.

Thank you!

[728610]

The argument here is supporting the first sentence. The core is:

the amount of wildlife has increased since the development went up

+

the park can support its current wildlife

-->

development hasn't had a bad effect on wildlife

But what does "amount of wildlife" mean? What if some species have gone way down in population while others have gone up—would that mean that there has been NO adverse effect? No. There would be an adverse effect—it would just be disguised.

(A) gets at this. If the first, earlier survey showed fewer numbers of SPECIES as well, that solves that issue. (A) is correct.

As for the others:

(B) weakens.

(C) isn't relevant. We're talking about now.

(D) also weakens. This would mean populations have likely gone down.

(E) likewise weakens.

I just wonder why c is not correct? c basically said while the number of animals is larger than ten years ago, the resource today can more easily support the more animals currently living in the park. It seems like strengthen the argument. How do you think?

[728610]

I am still confused with C. Firstly I am not sure whether "resource" here means money or food materials for wildlife. Even the resource refers to money, C says the number of wildlife in this park increase because of the migration. it seems like a strengthen.

[ohthatpatrick]

The truth value of the conclusion is about whether wildlife has or hasn't been adversely affected by the recent property development.

The relevance of the evidence is about whether "greater AMOUNT of wildlife" tells us that "wildlife has not been adversely affected".

So in what way are you thinking (C) would strengthen?

Does it offer evidence that boosts the plausibility of the conclusion? Does (C) make it more likely that the property development has not adversely affected wildlife?

Does it provide connective tissue between the evidence and the conclusion? Does (C) make it seem like "greater AMOUNT of wildlife" is an acceptable for proxy for "unharmed wildlife"?

(A) does the latter. It lets us know that "greater AMOUNT of wildlife" hasn't come amidst shrinking biodiversity, which would have indicated the harming of wildlife.

(A) also kinda does the former. "More animals of each species" sounds in the direction of "unharmed wildlife".

What is (C) adding to our understanding that makes you more likely to think that wildlife has been unharmed?

We already know that there is MORE wildlife now than before, so all (C) adds to our knowledge is that the current level of wildlife is more than the park could have supported a decade ago.

Is that a good thing?

To most people, (C) reads like it's describing a problem. "Oh no, our animal populations are beyond what park resources could support?"

We're only relieved because of the final sentence in the argument, which says that we DO have ample current resources. That relief may feel like strengthening, but that relief is provided by the last sentence of the argument, not by choice (C).

You seemed to think that (C) was strengthening by letting us know that the property development has triggered an influx of animals into the park.

How does an influx of animals relate to whether or not the park's wildlife is adversely affected?

More animals is better/worse/the same?

We already know there are more animals than before. The cause doesn't really matter, and you seem to like (C) because it addresses the cause of more wildlife. We only care about the effect: has the park's wildlife been adversely affected?