Self-study
Conclusion New evidence indicates that recent property development bordering a national park has not adversely affected the park's wildlife. ██ ███ █████████ █ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ███████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███████ █████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███████████ ███████ ███████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that recent property development next to a national park has not harmed the park’s wildlife. This is based on the fact that a comparison of a survey conducted right before the development began and a recent survey shows that the amount of wildlife has increased over the past decade. In addition, the park’s resources can support the current wildlife population without any strain.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the amount of wildlife would not have increased more without the property development. The author also assumes that the amount of wildlife is a reliable indicator of whether the park’s wildlife has been harmed.
25.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ███ █████████
a
While both surveys █████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ █████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███████ █████████ ██ ████ ████████
This strengthens by helping to eliminate the possibility that the property development decreased the amount of certain species. Without (A), it’s possible the overall wildlife amount increased, but some species were wiped out.
b
The more recent ██████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██ ███ █████████
If anything, this might weaken the argument by providing an alternate explanation for why the recent survey showed an increase in wildlife amount. This suggests the development might have hurt wildlife, but this effect was masked by the timing of the recent survey.
Directionally wrong
Directionally wrong
Answers that, if they have any effect, do the opposite of what we want (weaken when we're trying to strengthen, or strengthen when we're trying to weaken).
c
Migration of wildlife ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ █████ ███ █████████ ██████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██████ █████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ████ █████████ █ ██████ ████
Whether the resources 10 years ago could have supported the current wildlife amount has no impact, because we know the park currently has enough resources. We don’t have any additional reason to believe wildlife haven’t been harmed.
d
The most recent ██████████ ███ █████████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ █████████████████ ███████ ████ ████ █████ ███████████
If anything, this might weaken the argument by providing an alternate explanation for why the recent survey showed an increase in wildlife amount. This suggests the development might have hurt wildlife, but the effect was masked by improvements in locating and counting wildlife.
Directionally wrong
Directionally wrong
Answers that, if they have any effect, do the opposite of what we want (weaken when we're trying to strengthen, or strengthen when we're trying to weaken).
e
The more recent ██████ ███ ████ ████████ ████████ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███████ ████ ████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ █████
If anything, this might weaken the argument by providing an alternate explanation for why the recent survey showed an increase in wildlife amount. This suggests the development might have hurt wildlife, but this effect was masked by how the recent survey was conducted.
Directionally wrong
Directionally wrong
Answers that, if they have any effect, do the opposite of what we want (weaken when we're trying to strengthen, or strengthen when we're trying to weaken).