Q9 - Novice bird-watcher: I don't know much about animal tra

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Flaw

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: This track was made by a bird.
Evidence: This track was made by an animal with four toes (three forward, one back). And most birds have four toes (three forward, one back).

Any prephrase?
The author is Explaining/Interpreting some statistic/anomaly/phenomenon (in this case, the animal track before her). We know the two pressure points for evaluating that type of argument are

1. How ELSE can you explain/interpret the same fact?
and
2. How PLAUSIBLE is the AUTHOR'S story?

The author has already established some plausibility for her bird-hypothesis. The number and orientation of toes seen in the track matches what you'd expect from a bird. But what if there are no birds in the area. What if birds are just a tiny fraction of the animals that have three toes in front, one in back? What if the tracks have been adulterated, and there were really FOUR in front? What ELSE could be the source of this animal track?

Correct answer:
D

Answer choice analysis:
A) This is the famous Equivocation flaw (almost never correct). There ARE different meanings to the word 'track', but the author was consistent in her use.

B) It's true, the author didn't define birds as animals with four toes, but that's not a reasoning problem with the argument. The author actually specified that MOST birds have four toes, allowing for the idea that other birds don't have four toes. So there's no reason we would have needed/wanted this author to define birds as "four-toed" animals.

C) True, the author didn't do this. But this isn't a problem with her reasoning. She wins her argument if the track was made by a bird. Period. It doesn't matter which kind of bird.

D) This could work. The author fails to consider OTHER EXPLANATIONS, and instead confidently concludes "[the animal track] WAS made by some kind of bird." This is a #1 pressure point type answer. It alludes to the possibility that there are OTHER EXPLANATIONS besides the author's.

E) There is no evidence about any individual bird, so we can stop reading this choice halfway through.

Takeaway/Pattern: The correct answer is the classic, "How ELSE could we explain/interpret the same background fact?" It might seem a little weird to some because the "only" is very extreme sounding, and thus a red flag on a takes for granted / presumes / does not establish / fails to specify (Nec. Assump) type answer. But since the conclusion is unequivocally sure of itself, "the track WAS made by a bird", the author is assuming there's NOTHING ELSE to consider.

#officialexplanation

[lolitatrekkie]

Is answer choice D the correct answer because just because birds typically have four toes (three toes pointing forward and one points backwards) doesn't mean that a bird left the animal tracks and that it ignores the possibility of a different animal that has made the tracks?

Thanks!