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.
7.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ███ █████████
a
The seabirds that ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████
(A) puts a limitation on how much the program could incentivize the fishing industry to cooperate. That in turn limits how effective the program would be—which is the opposite of what we want to do in strengthening the case for this program.
b
The government has ███ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ███████ ████ ████ ████████████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██████ ███████ ██ █████████
(B) just tells us that this program would be a new initiative. That doesn't affect the argument because it doesn't help us assess the likely outcome of the program.
c
The government cannot ████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███████████
(C) eliminates an alternative approach of counting seabirds without industry involvement. That makes it even more important to get the industry to cooperate, strengthening the case that the government really should implement this program.
d
If the government ████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ████ ████████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████ █████ ████████ ███ ████████
(D) provides a disincentive for the industry to cooperate with the new program, which actually weakens the case for its likely effectiveness.
e
If net fishing ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████████ █████ ██████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████
The argument never proposes a restriction on net fishing, so (E) just doesn't apply. We need to show that a toxin examination program will be useful, not come up with another way to count dead seabirds.