PT107.S3.Q8

PrepTest 107 - Section 3 - Question 8

Hide analysis

The local agricultural official gave the fruit growers of the District 10 Farmers' Cooperative a new pesticide that they applied for a period of three years to their pear orchards in place of the pesticide they had formerly applied. ██████ █████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ███ ████████ █████████ ████ ███ ███ █████████ ███ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ████████

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The agricultural official presents the hypothesis that a new pesticide is more effective than the old pesticide at protecting pears against insects, at least over a short-term period. This hypothesis is based on observing that when pear farmers in District 10 switched from the old pesticide to the new pesticide for three years, they lost fewer pears to insects than during the previous three years.

Notable Assumptions

The agricultural official assumes that just because there were fewer pears lost to insects while the new pesticide was in use, the new pesticide was the cause of this change. In other words, the official assumes that there wasn’t some other factor which could have been the true cause of the farmers’ results.

Show answer
8.

Each of the following, if █████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███████

a

The amount of █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██████

This does not weaken, and so is the correct answer. This claim doesn’t explain why there would be fewer pears lost to insects in the last three years. Overall pear production can change without affecting the proportion of pears that insects destroy, so this just gives us nothing.

Illusory inconsistency
80%
b

During the past ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ████ ████ █████████ ████████████ █ ███████ ██ ████████████████ █████████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███████████

This weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the observation. If the pear farmers have been gradually implementing anti-insect programs, then it makes sense that the last three years would see fewer insect losses.

Alternate explanation
6%
c

Over the past ████ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ █████ ████ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████ █████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ████████ ███

This weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the observation. If insect-eating birds have been spending more time around District 10, they would have eaten more insects, thus protecting the pears.

Alternate explanation
3%
d

Some of the ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ███ █████ █████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ████ █████████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██████

This weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the observation. If pear-eating insects have had less water in which to breed, then there would be fewer insects, which explains why there have been fewer pears eaten by insects.

Alternate explanation
4%
e

The effects of ███████ ███████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ █████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████████

This weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the observation. If the effects of the old pesticide get stronger with each use and last for years, then the pears would have been protected by a strong built-up effect during the three years in question.

Alternate explanation
8%

Confirm action

Are you sure?