Self-study
Support The fishing industry cannot currently be relied upon to help the government count the seabirds killed by net fishing, since Support an accurate count might result in restriction of net fishing. ███ ██████████ ██████ █████████ █████████ █ ███████ █████ █████ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ████ █ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ █████ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████████ ████ ███████
Argument Breakdown: Causal Reasoning
The argument concludes that the government should create a program to examine toxins in seabird carcasses in order to better count the number of seabirds killed by net fishing. This is supported by two sub-conclusions.
The first sub-conclusion is that the fishing industry isn't trustworthy to directly help with counting seabird deaths. This is because it would go against their interests to do so: an accurate count could lead to restrictions on net fishing.
The second sub-conclusion is that a toxin examination program would motivate the fishing industry to cooperate. This is because such a program would offer useful information to the industry. After all, the program would assess toxins in the fish eaten by seabirds, and the industry wants to know if the fish are toxic.
Strengthening/Weakening Approach
The argument is premised on two key claims: that the fishing industry is currently unreliable due to a conflict of interest, and that a toxin examination program would make the industry reliable by providing a strong incentive to hand in bird carcasses. The correct answer might target either claim. It also might address considerations such as alternative possibilities or the efficacy of similar initiatives in the past.
8.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ████████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████
a
The seabirds killed ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ████████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ██ █████
We're interested in how effective the program will be in counting dead seabirds. As far as we know, the chance of finding multiple toxins doesn't limit the program's ability to count the birds, so (A) doesn't weaken the argument.
b
The fishing industry █████ █████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ █ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ █████████
In other words, the industry could get the same incentive with only limited cooperation. If they hand in only a few birds, the government still won't get an accurate count, but the industry will get all the data they need. This effectively weakens the likely success of the program.
c
The government could ████ ████████ ███████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████
(C) offers a nice additional bonus for the program, but it doesn't say anything about how accurate the seabird count is likely to be.
d
The fish caught ██ █ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ ████████████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ████ ████
(D) further explains why the fishing industry would want to participate: to understand if their fish are contaminated. However, that doesn't weaken the argument. Instead, (D) is fully consistent with the argument.
e
The government would ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ████████████ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████████████
(E) provides an additional incentive for industry to cooperate with the program. That only strengthens the argument. On the other hand, we need to show that there's a limit to the program's effectiveness.