Self-study
Peter: Because the leaves of mildly drought-stressed plants are tougher in texture than the leaves of abundantly watered plants, insects prefer to feed on the leaves of abundantly watered plants. ██████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███████ ███████ ██████ █████ █████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███████████ ███████ ████ █ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████
█████████ ███████ ██ █████ █ ██████ ████████████████ █████ ████ ██████ █ █████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██████ ████ ████
Summarize Argument
Peter points out that mildly drought-stressed plants have tougher leaves than abundantly watered plants, and so insects prefer to feed on abundantly watered plants. Thus, Peter concludes, in order to minimize damage to crops, farmers should water their plants only just enough to avoid any substantial threat from lack of water. Jennifer agrees with Peter's conclusion and adds an additional point in support: mildly drought-stressed plants use some of their resources to create pesticidal toxins, while well-watered plants don't.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Jennifer supports Peter's conclusion, and adds another premise in support of his conclusion. Not only do mildly drought-stressed plants have leaves that are tougher and less appealing to insects, they also naturally create pesticidal toxins.
This new premise strengthens the idea that if plants are watered only as much as Peter suggests, this will minimize crop damage. We know the plants are being watered enough to avoid any substantial risk from lack of water, while we also now know that these plants will likely incur less damage from insects for two different reasons: the texture of their leaves and the plants' production of pesticidal toxins.
10.
Jennifer's comment is related to ███████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████
a
It offers information ████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ███ █████████
The wording here is tricky. It's important to see that the information Jennifer provides doesn't actually support "each of the claims" Peter makes — it only supports his conclusion. Jennifer's point about mildly drought-stressed plants producing toxins doesn't support Peter's first claim, his premise that because mildly drought-stressed plants have tougher leaves than abundantly watered plants, insects prefer abundantly watered plants. Those two claims aren't logically related to each other — they both just function as independent premises supporting Peter's conclusion.
b
It supports Peter's ████████ ██ █████████ █ ███████ ███████ █████ ███████ ██████████ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████
This answer choice suggests that the information Jennifer provides is somehow a necessary assumption that Peter’s argument didn't clearly state. That's not accurate. Jennifer’s comment provides additional support for Peter’s conclusion, but it isn't logically necessary in order for Peter's conclusion to be true.
c
It supports Peter's ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ██ ███████ █████████
Jennifer provides an independent premise to support Peter's conclusion. She doesn't explain any of Peter’s premises.
d
It supports one ██ ███████ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███████████
This is incorrect. Jennifer’s comment does not support Peter’s premise about tougher leaves, nor does it undermine that premise — and it certainly doesn't undermine Peter's conclusion. Her comment is simply an independent premise offering additional support for Peter’s conclusion.
e
It supports the ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ████ ███████████
This is correct. Jennifer supports the conclusion that to minimize crop damage, farmers should only water crops just enough to ensure no substantial threat from lack of water. Her comment provides independent support for this conclusion, beyond the support that Peter provides.