Self-study
Conclusion Garbage dumps do not harm wildlife. ████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █ ████ ██████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ █████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ████████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author presents the hypothesis that garbage dumps don’t harm wildlife. This hypothesis is supported by observations of baboons in the Masai-Mara game reserve : baboons who scavenge in the reserve’s garbage dumps grow faster and have more offspring than baboons who don’t eat garbage.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that eating garbage is not causing other harms to the baboons who scavenge in dumps. In other words, the author assumes that growth speed and number of offspring accurately represent the baboons’ health.
The author also assumes that there’s no alternative explanation for the differences between the baboons who eat garbage and the baboons who do not.
Finally, the author assumes that, even if the Masai-Mara baboons aren’t harmed by garbage, observations of these baboons can support a conclusion about wildlife in general.
23.
Each of the following statements, ██ █████ █████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████
a
The baboons that ████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██ █ █████████ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ██ ████
This weakens the argument, because it proposes an alternative explanation for the differences between the scavenging and non-scavenging baboons. If we can’t accurately compare the impact of garbage between these groups, the argument is weakened.
Alternate explanation
Alternate explanation
Weaken: Introduce or support an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Strengthen: Helps to eliminate an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
b
The life expectancy ██ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ████████
Like (C) and (E), this weakens the argument by adding a new way that eating garbage could harm the baboons’ health. If the scavenging baboons grow faster and have more offspring, but also die faster, it becomes much harder to say that garbage does not harm them.
c
The cholesterol level ██ ██████████████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ████████
Like (B) and (E), this weakens the argument by giving us another example of how garbage could be harming the baboons. This rebuts the author’s assumption that growth speed and birth rates are the only relevant markers of the baboons’ health, thus weakening.
d
The population of ██████ ████ ████ ████ ███████████ ███████ █████████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██████
This does not weaken the argument. If these garbage dumps are helping the hyena population grow, that may even strengthen by demonstrating another species that isn’t harmed. Even if not, this doesn’t give us any reason to doubt the argument, so does not weaken.
Directionally wrong
Directionally wrong
Answers that, if they have any effect, do the opposite of what we want (weaken when we're trying to strengthen, or strengthen when we're trying to weaken).
e
The rate of █████ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ █████ ███ █████ █████████ ████ ███████
Like (B) and (C), this weakens the argument by demonstrating a harm possibly caused by the garbage dumps that the author has overlooked. This harm isn’t just to the scavenging baboons, but the timing relative to the dumps opening suggests a possible causal link, thus weakening.