PT71.S3.Q25 Str park wildlife

MarkmarkMarkmark Alum Member
edited August 2020 in Logical Reasoning 976 karma

I enjoyed this Q and thought I'd do a write-up.

The hard things on this Q for me were seeing the conclusion and understanding AC D.

The statement about development not negatively affecting the wildlife in the park is the conclusion, because it draws support from the following statements about #s on wildlife increasing and the Park's resources can support the current numbers. At first I thought this would just be a premise but after I read the paragraph I had to go back and see what the conclusion actually was.

The second sentence is a bit confusing, let's unpack it. We're talking about 2 surveys - the most recent surgery compared to one taken just before the development started. We should be asking "how far apart were these surveys taken?" The stim tells us a decade, so ten years. That's enough time to see a sizeable difference.

Next we see that theamount of wildlife has increased in those 10 years. Here is where your flaw detector should be going off!! The amount of wildlife has increased, but do we know that this means the Park's wildlife has not been negatively affected? Heck no. What if the development led to the death of all bears, and now without predators the bunny population is 20million? Or what if development led to every animal getting really sick, so now they don't kill each other, they just sit there in a catatonic state? Definitely a negative impact.

We're given 1 more premise that is not really important for getting the right answer. The parks current resources can support the current population. Ok? Will it support 1 more animal? Idk.

I've identified a flaw and now ready for ACs:

A. (Going bit by bit): ok, the recent survey and 10 years ago survey. This was the bunny flaw we identified. What if 9/10 species died due to the development? We're saying that's NOT the case. Still 10 species alive now, no fewer. Now we see the latest survey shows increased #s in each species. Bears, bunnies, etc all have increased populations. Good! This addresses a big flaw, and I like it. Def keep this answer. Turns out this is the correct AC.

B. If we took a snapshot of wildlife total numbers we need to know those numbers aren't skewed. B is showing it IS skewed - we took a snapshot at the peak time.

If this is how you read B you made the same mistake I did. "Diversity" is not the same as gross numbers. If this AC read "in addition to total number increase, diversity increased as well." This would add support to the argument that wildlife has not been negatively affected by the development.

The issue with B is it does indicate the snapshot is skewed - it was taken during summer when the numbers look best. Also make sure to note diversity isn't the same as gross numbers.

C. If animals are migrating in, then what can we conclude about the numbers of animals within the park? No idea!! The argument is using the total number of animals in the park increasing as a premise. Now that number is skewed by outside interference. What if 100% of animals within the park died, and 200% that number migrated in? Certainly we can't say the development had no negative impact.

D. This is a great subtle AC which makes it a little hard to see why is wrong. What does it mean that we can locate hard to find animals now that we couldn't in the past? It means in the past we could find 8/10 animals and now we're finding all 10/10. This weakens the support that the premise gives to the conclusion. What if population numbers didn't increase and you're just finding the last 2/10 animals?

E. Plant life - what about alien life? Did they find SpongeBob and Patrick? This is a throwaway AC because I don't care about plants - plants don't have a place in the argument we're given.

Admin Note:

Sign In or Register to comment.