PT27.S4.Q6 Help please! Monarch Butterflies (Evaluate)

BeLikeLedeckyBeLikeLedecky Monthly Member
edited October 2021 in Logical Reasoning 48 karma

Hi all! I've been pondering this question for a while but still have trouble seeing why answer choices (B) and (D) are incorrect.

I tried to supply polar answers to the questions posed in (B) and (D). My thought process was:

  • if woodcutters cut down a tiny amount/proportion of the trees, then monarch butterflies won't fall off, and the tour groups may have only committed a tiny mistake.
  • if woodcutters cut down a giant amount/proportion of the trees, then monarch butterflies will fall off, and the tour groups have indeed made a huge mistake in endangering the monarch butterfly population.

Any light you can shed on my thought process (and why it's incorrect) would be greatly appreciated! #help

Admin Note:


  • Elle KoodsElle Koods Alum Member
    133 karma

    Hi there! maybe my thought process helps, I got this question right by following logic:

    I think the danger here is that you are focusing on the info not directly related to the conclusion - (i.e. Woodcutter, which is the purpose "in an effort to" of local environmental groups.

    The main premise and conclusion of this stimulus can be thought in Causal flaw:

    P: Tourists trample MOST of the small shrubs necessary to survival of monarch butterflies that FALL OFF the trees.

    C: Tour groups are ENDANGERING (i.e. causing) --> monarch butterfly population.

    The flaw here, is to jump on the absolute conclusion from the subset of info ("most small shrubs" does not represent ALL ).

    Therefore, in order for us to ensure this argument is airtight, we need to validate (= calculate) if the impact to this subset (butterflies that fall off trees) from the whole pie.

    This is what (E) is exactly doing.

Sign In or Register to comment.