22 is a pretty tough question. It's a strengthening question which I'm following.

If true, the answer choice is that is, if true, most strongly supports the hypothesis.

So, you know, we talked about this in our core science lessons about, you know, the framework of science.

Hypothesis, phenomenon supporting a certain story that you tell to explain the phenomenon,

which I guess is a little bit down here. The certain story you tell to explain the phenomenon is called a hypothesis.

So really, you know, the analogous relation is premise-conclusion relationship, right?

So, strengthening, right? Make it somehow like added additional fact to this story here

so that our hypothesis makes more sense, right?

The conclusion is, in other words, more strongly supported by the premises.

Okay, so you got to identify the conclusion, which this sense is the word here.

So anyway, so what's the story? What's going on?

The native salmon, whatever type of salmon those were. We introduced sockeye salmon back in 1940.

Okay, so like, let's say this is our lake. It's clear. It's called Clearwater.

Okay, so after being introduced, this genetically uniform group of sockeye split into two distinct populations that do not interbreed.

So, initially, they were genetically uniform, right?

Now, they have two distinct populations that don't interbreed, one inhabiting the deep areas of the lake, the other the shallows, right?

So this is the deeps. These are the shallows, right? S for shallow, D for deep.

So now that's where you'll find the two groups of salmon. Just pretend the pink dots are like salmon.

So, okay, so since the two populations now differ genetically,

see, remember, when they were introduced in 1940, they were genetically uniform.

Now they split into these two distinct groups that do not breed with each other, right?

Their genes don't get mixed back. They kept like getting mixed back in.

They did sort of breed together always all the time. Then they wouldn't be genetically,

they would just be genetically uniform like they were when they were introduced, right?

So now they're genetically different and this is where, this is where the story ends.

This is where the phenomenon ends, right? This is the last bit of the premise, so to speak, the phenomenon.

Now, they chose to use the sense grammatical construction to give us our conclusion.

They didn't have to. They could have just, you know, I don't know, capitalized this T over here,

added a period over here, right? And then tossed in a therefore, therefore, some researchers hypothesized.

That wouldn't have changed a thing, right? Oh, I guess you need to capitalize this.

So, right, so that's, this is our story. These are the phenomenon.

Now, here comes the hypothesis. This is a hypothesis.

Like before you read this, what, what, if I just asked you, hey, you know, play scientist here, play biologist, right?

What, what story would you tell to explain how come when they were introduced in 1940, right?

They were genetically uniform. Now, they split into two distinct groups, one like the shallows, one like the deeps.

And now, and they don't interbreed, and now they're genetically different.

Tell me, explain this to me. Why? How, how are they genetic?

Well, one scientist comes in and says, hey, listen, maybe it's because they adapted genetically to their distinct habitats, right?

Like the shallows maybe have evolutionary pressures, competition for food, I don't know, where maybe the prey hide somewhere else.

And maybe the deeps have different evolutionary pressures. Maybe you need, I don't know, better eyesight.

Higher sensitivity light, because less light penetrate the deeps, right?

Here you need, I don't know, because the water's not as dense.

You need like pectoral fins that are designed to serve.

I mean, I don't know. Right. Like you can see that this is not like a crazy hypothesis, right?

But it's just one hypothesis. How about a competing hypothesis?

Like what if, remember those like natives salmon that like nearly disappeared?

What if the ones that remained have only survived in the shallows, right?

Or maybe I should use a different color. Let's say these are the greens, like the native salmon, right?

What if they only survive in the shallows? What if they sort of interbred a little bit?

What if their genes got mixed in with these guys genes?

Isn't that a very compelling alternative hypothesis to tell about how come now you look at it, you're like, oh, their genes are different.

Well, yeah, no shit, they're different. Like they've been interbreeding with these alien or, I guess these are the indigenous salmon.

You guys are the alien salmon, right? But that's why they're different.

See, I mean, I just made it didn't have to be in the shallows.

Same thing could have happened in the deep. Like what if, oh, what if the native remaining salmon were just living in the deep?

Right. What if they were interbreeding? Right. Then, of course, their genes would be different than their genes.

And you don't have to appeal to like environmental differences.

In fact, there could be no environmental differences. Right. Lake Clearwater.

Guess what? What you call the shallow and what you call the deep. They're actually pretty much the same.

Right. No different evolutionary pressures. But that but despite that.

So that would totally wreck your hypothesis. Right. But despite that, you can still explain why the genes are different because they just been interbreeding.

So given that this is not a weakening question, you don't want to support this.

Given that this is a strengthening question, you just deny it.

See that. That's just like, no, at least this didn't happen. Right.

Yeah. Maybe you're clever. Maybe you can come up with some other hypothesis that also is competing.

That also doesn't tell this story. Right. But at the very least, you've answered the question out of these five answer choices.

All of which are four of which are irrelevant, by the way.

Right. This is the one that most strongly supports our researchers hypothesis.

So it's a very standard form. Elsack question that uses causation logic that uses phenomenon hypothesis.

But you see, I think what makes this question difficult is you have no idea what you're even trying to do at the end of it.

Right. If by the end of it, you had a sense of like, OK, you know, this is a story they're telling.

I need to somehow make these facts plus one of the answer choices more compelling to this story.

Then A might have made some sense. And the others would have more obviously made no sense.

OK. So they also live in the shallows and deeps. Like how is that?

See, if you didn't know what you were trying to do, then I guess that sounds kind of like, oh, OK.

Back then we also had shallows and deeps. But like what?

So like are they were they genetically different when they lived in the shallows and deeps?

Right. If they were genetically different and you were able to show me that they were genetically different because of the different evolutionary pressures exerted on them from living in the shallows versus living in the deeps, then maybe this has some relevance to this.

Right. It's like, oh, look, look at this other species. They also were affected, adapted genetically to their distinct habitats.

Well, that may be that makes more sense for this. But just telling me they lived in shallows and deeps.

I don't know. Maybe they were genetically the same while living in the shallows and deeps, in which case B becomes a weakening answer choice instead of strengthening.

Right. So it's it's very at this point, just you're stating something totally irrelevant.

Most types of salmon. Imagine the world of salmons. Right. OK. Now, carp, the entire world.

OK. Just more than 50 percent. Right. Most of them. You're going to tell me about something about most of them.

Wow. D is a really interesting one. One of the population is actually one of them, whichever one it is.

Let's just say this one doesn't matter, is virtually identical to the sockeye originally.

So basically, D is saying this, you know, we already know they're genetically distinct. Right.

Like that's something we already knew from this. D is just telling us that one of them didn't change.

So in other words, it was only like this one that changed their genes or like, I don't know, or this one didn't change.

It was only this one that changed their genes. Right. OK. That tells me nothing.

Like I already knew they were genetically different. You telling me that only because, you know,

genetically different could have occurred in many different ways. Right.

You could have changed this way. You could have changed this way. Both of you guys change.

That would be genetically different. You could have stayed constant and you change any which way you want.

And that would be different. Or alternatively, you stay constant and you change any which way you want.

And that's that's also different. So those are at least three different.

I think those might be logically the only three different ways for genetic for two groups to become genetically distinct.

But you're just telling me like, oh, and by the way, you remain constant.

OK, I still don't know why they're different. Right.

Is that we still struggle to come up with a story. How come they're genetically different?

Right. D does absolutely nothing. And E is even more worthless.

Like what does that mean? There are what? Three short?

Three salmon short of whatever the high number of sockeye or rather the native was back in its peak.

I don't know what you're doing.