Q6 - Some scientists believe that the

[slimjimsquinn]

Argument goes like this:

Opposing point: Some scientists believe relationship between mice and diminished to the point that it creates dependence of humans on mice

Con: The view ignores significant facts

Premise: Fact 1 - mice have a wider population distribution than any other mammal except humans

Premise: Fact 2 - mice reproduce rapidly and are able to adapt to wide range of habits

Premise: Naturalists predict mice are able to adapt and survive if environment become too extreme to support human life.



I whittled my choices down to c) or d). I saw my task as strengthening the conclusion that mice are not dependent on humans.
I chose c) because it showed that mice was able to survive before humans came. If there were no humans and yet mice still existed, doesn't that prove that mice are not dependent on humans for survival?

I tossed d) because it seemed like a premise booster, reinforcing the premise that mice are able to adapt and survive in extreme conditions.


Thanks for your help! Not sure why but these questions from earlier tests are killin' me!

[maryadkins]

Good question. That is some awesome analysis you did there, so I have no comments on your breakdown!

But as to (C) versus (D), we have to revisit the argument to see that there is a bit of nuance in it. The scientists in the opposing point think that mice's ability to survive over time has gone down and that NOW they're dependent on humans. The naturalists are opposing this. No one is talking about what mice could do before we humans came around.

(C) is about what happened before humans came around.

(D) is in the present, post human arrival. Bingo.

To touch on the others:

(A) and (B) are irrelevant. (E) weakens the argument.

Hope this helps!

[WaltGrace1983]

I saw my task as strengthening the conclusion that mice are not dependent on humans.

I'm a bit confused on this. Shouldn't the core in the original post be a bit different? The question stem is asking what would "support the naturalists' prediction." Thus, wouldn't we see the prediction more akin to the conclusion of the argument? In addition, wouldn't we not need to focus as much on the argument as much as the prediction itself? I know that strengthen/weaken questions sometimes have very specific tasks as outlined by the stem. Here is how I see the argument:

Mice have distributed themselves more widely than any other mammal
+
Mice reproduce rapidly and adapt
→
The opinion that humans have diminished the ability of mice to survive ignores significant facts

This conclusion is basically irrelevant. Sure, it seems to show how the prediction came about indirectly, but we would still not care about the idea that the "opinion [...] ignores significant facts. What we are really concerned about looks more like this...

Mice have distributed themselves more widely than any other mammal
+
Mice reproduce rapidly and adapt
→
Naturalists predict that mice would be able to adapt and survive

Thus, looking at the answer choices with this core in mind, the answers become a little more clear.

(A) This may actually weaken the prediction. If there isn't ample food (which I am assuming would be the case if the humans all died out) then the mice may continue to dwindle indefinitely.

(B) This shows how quick mice can procreate. However, the big kicker with this answer choice is that it is "under optimum conditions." I would really doubt that the "extreme" conditions that are unfit for human life would still be sufficiently "optimal."

(C) This is the one that is a great answer...but for the wrong task. This would definitely strengthen the first core I outlined, the one stating that mice can definitely live without humans. However, this doesn't really support the prediction that mice would be able to live in conditions unfit for humans. Who's to say that mice living in a world before humans is unfit for humans? Isn't the world's "fitness" for humans the reason why humans arouse in the first place?

(D) This seems like a much better answer. Antarctica, as the answer choice says, is too bleak and harsh for humans. However, mice are still living there! This gives us nice concrete evidence to support the prediction that mice can still live in places unfit for humans!

(E) This is completely irrelevant and I don't know how it would do anything for the prediction.

[maryadkins]

Nice nuanced breakdown, Walt.

I agree with your whole analysis, except that I wouldn't say that the naturalists' prediction is the conclusion just because it's what we're trying to support. It's not what the whole argument is designed to support. But for purposes of analyzing this oddball question, which is kind of weird"”it asks us to support a part of the argument that isn't the actual conclusion (at least, it doesn't read that way), your new core is perfect.

And as for (C), revisit my last post in which I discuss (C). It would not actually be a good answer for the first core you laid out for that reason.