Q6 - The waters around Shooter's Island have long been

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Strengthen (conclusion)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Still waters are the reason we see so many juvenile birds around Shooter's Island.
Evidence: Shooter's Island has wrecked ships around it that causes still waters, and while there are birds near all the islands, Shooter's Island has way more juveniles.

Answer Anticipation:
It's a causal argument, which is super common on Strengthen/Weaken. Our reaction is always two-pronged:
1. Are there OTHER ways we could explain the puzzling fact?
2. How plausible is the AUTHOR'S WAY of explaining it?

Thinking through #1, we're asking, "What could be a different reason for why Shooter's has juveniles?" Maybe the wrecked ships were useful for building nests. Maybe the wrecked ships protect from predators or make it easier to find/trap food.

For #2, we wold want more evidence that juveniles like still water or are heavy correlated with still water.

Since this is Strengthen, we either want to Rule Out some OTHER WAY or Support the AUTHOR'S WAY.

Correct Answer:


Answer Choice Analysis: C
(A) This has no effect. There was no timeline in the argument that we care about.

(B) This might strengthen a little by just making the ornithologist's observations more permanent. But otherwise it doesn't seem to do much.

(C) YES, this sounds pretty strong. Whenever possible, waterbirds use still waters as nurseries. Shooter's Island has still waters. So it's pretty easy to say these waterbirds are using Shooter's Island as nurseries.

(D) We basically already knew this, since were told that the waters around Shooter's were exceptionally still. That means that other waters by comparison will seem rougher.

(E) This weakens. If the author were right and Shooter's was a nursery for juveniles, then this answer suggests that Shooter's should have an overall abundance that's much more abundant than surrounding islands, but Shooter's has a similar overall abundance.

Takeaway/Pattern: The correct answer is pretty much a Bridge idea that more strongly connects the evidence about "still waters" with the conclusion about "nursery for juveniles". The correct answer adds a lot of plausibility to the Author's causal story.

#officialexplanation

[JenniferK632]

Regarding the explanation for (D): would you say that premise boosters in inference questions are typically wrong?

Question Type:
Strengthen (conclusion)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Still waters are the reason we see so many juvenile birds around Shooter's Island.
Evidence: Shooter's Island has wrecked ships around it that causes still waters, and while there are birds near all the islands, Shooter's Island has way more juveniles.

Answer Anticipation:
It's a causal argument, which is super common on Strengthen/Weaken. Our reaction is always two-pronged:
1. Are there OTHER ways we could explain the puzzling fact?
2. How plausible is the AUTHOR'S WAY of explaining it?

Thinking through #1, we're asking, "What could be a different reason for why Shooter's has juveniles?" Maybe the wrecked ships were useful for building nests. Maybe the wrecked ships protect from predators or make it easier to find/trap food.

For #2, we wold want more evidence that juveniles like still water or are heavy correlated with still water.

Since this is Strengthen, we either want to Rule Out some OTHER WAY or Support the AUTHOR'S WAY.

Correct Answer:


Answer Choice Analysis: C
(A) This has no effect. There was no timeline in the argument that we care about.

(B) This might strengthen a little by just making the ornithologist's observations more permanent. But otherwise it doesn't seem to do much.

(C) YES, this sounds pretty strong. Whenever possible, waterbirds use still waters as nurseries. Shooter's Island has still waters. So it's pretty easy to say these waterbirds are using Shooter's Island as nurseries.

(D) We basically already knew this, since were told that the waters around Shooter's were exceptionally still. That means that other waters by comparison will seem rougher.

(E) This weakens. If the author were right and Shooter's was a nursery for juveniles, then this answer suggests that Shooter's should have an overall abundance that's much more abundant than surrounding islands, but Shooter's has a similar overall abundance.

Takeaway/Pattern: The correct answer is pretty much a Bridge idea that more strongly connects the evidence about "still waters" with the conclusion about "nursery for juveniles". The correct answer adds a lot of plausibility to the Author's causal story.

#officialexplanation

[dmitry]

Regarding the explanation for (D): would you say that premise boosters in inference questions are typically wrong?

If this were an inference question, then we wouldn't be likely to think of one part of the stimulus as "premise" and another as "conclusion." On inference questions, we accept the truth of the whole thing, and then just see what else follows. D still wouldn't follow, because we don't know that just because these waters are exceptionally still, others are "much rougher." They might be just a bit rougher, or one of the other islands might have waters just as still as this one.

However, this is a Strengthen question, so we want something that builds on the premises we know. If we already know that the waters are exceptionally still, it doesn't add much to know that the others are much rougher. This does nothing to bridge the gap between the correlation in the premise (still waters, more juveniles) and the causal claim in the conclusion (still waters are a nursery for the juveniles).