#13 - Strengthen, Weaken

[eober]

Hi,

Where does the passages mention localized population and how does it weaken passage B?

Thanks for the explanation!

[David Boyle]

Hi,

Where does the passages mention localized population and how does it weaken passage B?

Thanks for the explanation!

Hello,

The passages do not mention "localized population reduction" per se. Read the question stem carefully. It says, "Which one of the following, if true, would cast doubt . . . but bolster. . . ?" This is a hypothetical.
It would weaken passage B by showing that some "small" impact on species could easily grow into "huge, extinction-tending" impact on species.

David

[Desperatenconfused]

Why is C incorrect ? Wouldn’t the fact that loosestrife causing extinction of one or more species representing a significant loss of revenue weaken author B’s point? And strengthen A?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Desparatenconfused!

To start with the correct answer choice, (A) states, "Localized population reduction is often a precursor to widespread endangerment of a species." The author of passage B seems to minimize the threat of localized population reduction--for example, by indicating that the mentioned species are not endangered (lines 55-58). The author of passage A, however, cites this as a problem caused by purple loosestrife (lines 11-12), so it would strengthen A's argument if this localized reduction was a precursor to widespread endangerment.

Answer choice (C) is saying that purple loosestrife could cause extinctions that could have a big impact on revenues from hunting, trapping, and recreation. Perhaps you could explain further how you see this as weakening passage B. The author of that passage seems aware that loosestrife and its control is really about these revenues (see especially lines 59-66).

[Desperatenconfused]

Thanks for your response!
I believe it would weaken Part B's passage, because it states "What is threatened by purple loosestrife is the economics of exploiting such preferred species and the millions of dollars that will be lost to the economies of the US" and also, like you said, seems to minimize the threat of loosestrife on making other species endangered/extinct.

If answer choice C was true, then loosestrife WOULD cause the extinction of one or more species that would also affect the revenues (and thus the economy). Therefore, passage B is weakened because loosestrife would indeed be a threat other than just risking millions of dollars when exploiting the preferred species, while strengthening A in that loosestrife, again is a threat in causing extinction of species.

I feel like I did not explain my process that well, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from..

Hi Desparatenconfused!

To start with the correct answer choice, (A) states, "Localized population reduction is often a precursor to widespread endangerment of a species." The author of passage B seems to minimize the threat of localized population reduction--for example, by indicating that the mentioned species are not endangered (lines 55-58). The author of passage A, however, cites this as a problem caused by purple loosestrife (lines 11-12), so it would strengthen A's argument if this localized reduction was a precursor to widespread endangerment.

Answer choice (C) is saying that purple loosestrife could cause extinctions that could have a big impact on revenues from hunting, trapping, and recreation. Perhaps you could explain further how you see this as weakening passage B. The author of that passage seems aware that loosestrife and its control is really about these revenues (see especially lines 59-66).

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Desparatenconfused!

You mention,

If answer choice C was true, then loosestrife WOULD cause the extinction of one or more species that would also affect the revenues (and thus the economy)

I'm not sure that (C) is saying that loosestrife would cause extinction. (C) states, "The amount by which overall hunting, trapping, and recreation revenues would be reduced as a result of the extinction of one or more species threatened by purple loosestrife represents a significant portion of those revenues." The way this is stated isn't saying that an extinction in fact takes place. It seems more to be saying conditionally that if certain species go extinct because of purple loosestrife, that would represent a signification portion of hunting, trapping, and recreation revenues.

[lemonade42]

Hi!

For answer (E), I thought that it was wrong because it has no effect on (A) or (B) instead of "because it is an opposite answer". I thought that because the answer talks about purple loosestrife in its native habitat, but the passages are talking about purple loosestrife in their non-native habitat which is North American wetlands. So since the answer is not applicable to any of the arguments made in the passages, it seemed like it had no effect. Is it wrong to dismiss the answer for that reason?

[Dana D]

Hey Lemonade,

A stronger reason to eliminate answer choice (E) is that we are looking for something that weakens passage B and strengthens passage A. Passage A says loosestrife is an aggressive invader that must be stopped, passage B says that's unnecessary. If answer choice (E) was true, it would seem to support passage B, showing that in it's natural habitat, purple loosestrife is not a problem, therefore there is not really a reason to eliminate it here in North America. Answer (E) hurts passage A and strengthens passage B, which is the opposite of what we need the correct answer to do.