Self-study
According to the "bottom-up" theory of how ecosystems are structured, Conclusion the availability of edible plants is what primarily determines an ecosystem's characteristics since Support it determines how many herbivores the ecosystem can support, which in turn determines how many predators it can support. ████ ██████ ████ █████ ████ █ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
There isn't an argument presented here with premises and conclusion. We're just told two claims made by the bottom-up theory makes. First, ecosystems are primarily determined by how many edible plants they can support, since edible plants support herbivores, which in turn support predators. Second, reducing the number of predators will have little impact on an ecosystem.
Notable Assumptions
The bottom-up theory assumes that even if the number of predators go down, the number of herbivores won't go up to a point where they overeat the edible plants and cause the ecosystem to collapse. In other words, the theory assumes that the number of edible plants determines the number of herbivores, but that the number of herbivores doesn't necessarily have an effect on the number of edible plants. The direction of causality only goes one way: plants affect herbivores, which affect predators, and not the other way around.
8.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ █████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███████
a
In an effort ██ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ █ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ███████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ ████████
Since there were no edible plants available for this species, this species died out. This data is consistent with the bottom-up theory. We're looking for something to undermine it.
b
After hunting virtually ██████████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████ ███████ █████████ ████ ████ ████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ████████████ ████████
This undermines the bottom-up theory's claim that reducing the number of predators will have little effect on the ecosystem. In this case, reducing predators led to an overpopulation of herbivores, which dramatically reduced the number of edible plants.
Plausibility
Plausibility
Presenting evidence that corroborates (in Strengthen) or conflicts (in Weaken) with the author's hypothesized explanation or the predictions that follow from that explanation.
c
After many of ███ █████ ██ ██████ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███████████ █████ █████ ███████ █ ████████ ██████████ ███████████ █ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ ████████ ██████████
Supposing those trees are edible plants, which we aren't told, this would support the bottom-up theory. Even if the trees weren't edible, this wouldn't challenge the theory.
d
After a new ███████ ██ ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████ █████ ████ ██████ ███████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ █ ████ ██ ███ ███ █████
As far as we know, the main thing that matters about the plants in the bottom-up theory is that they are edible. So fully replacing one species of edible plant with another one, and seeing no change in the herbivore population, is fully consistent with the theory.
e
Plants that are █ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ ████████
This data could be completely consistent with the bottom-up theory. We're looking for something that challenges the claims that edible plants determine the characteristics of an ecosystem, and reducing predators won't make much of a difference.