Self-study
Anita: Support Since 1960 the spotted owl population has declined alarmingly. ██████ █████████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ███████ █████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ███████████ ███ █████
█████ ███ ███ ███████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ ██ █ █████ ████████ ███ ███ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ████ ████████ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███ ███████ ████
Method Of Reasoning
Anita’s statements exhibit textbook phenomenon-hypothesis reasoning. She hypothesizes that a certain phenomenon (spotted owls dying) is being caused by something in particular (timber companies).
Jean’s statements exhibit a textbook response to phenomenon-hypothesis reasoning: suggesting an alternative hypothesis. She says the phenomenon (spotted owls dying) isn’t due to Anita’s hypothesized cause (timber companies), but to a different cause (the rival species barred owl).
This question asks us to describe what Jean does. What she does is present an alternative to Anita’s hypothesis. These argument patterns are common enough that you should absolutely aspire to anticipate a near-verbatim version of that answer.
This might sound oversimplistic, but the wrong answers in this question will all be wrong because they describe stuff Jean doesn’t do.
1.
Jean does which one of ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████
a
denies the truth ██ ███████ ███████ ████ ██████ █████████ ████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ███████
Jean doesn’t challenge the fact that timber companies are clearing forests, she challenges the causal link between that circumstance and the phenomenon of spotted owls dying.
b
challenges Anita's assumption ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ █████ █ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ████████
(B)’s just out here making stuff up. A stimulus matching (B) would have Anita saying something like:
Since 1960 spotted owls have been dying a lot. Therefore, they’re doomed as a species.
But, you know, Anita doesn’t say that. And Jean certainly doesn’t challenge this assumption that Anita doesn’t make.
c
proposes an alternative ███████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██████████
This hits the nail on the head. Jean says it’s not Anita’s explanation (timber companies), but a different explanation (rival species) that accounts for the spotted owl’s decline.
d
argues that Anita's ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████ █ ████ ██████ ████ ██████
Jean does mention a time period (for the last three decades), but not in the context of arguing that [Anita isn’t measuring the spotted owl’s decline over a long enough time period].
Everything inside those brackets is just stuff (D) conjured out of thin air.
e
suggests that Anita ██████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███████
“The possibility that spotted owls are able to live in forests that are not old-growth forests” doesn’t occur anywhere in Jean’s statements.