#12 - In a national park located on an island, a herd of

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[tayloramalkin]

HI!
I don't understand how C is any better than A?

Is A wrong because you would have to assume that the other predators moving into the area would have killed the moose? If so, how is C any better? Wouldn't you have to assume that the disease would have killed the other moose as well?

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi tayloramalkin,

Here, we're looking for an answer choice that explains why fewer moose would be dying, essentially, so that the population can increase. A is saying that wolves might be making it less likely that another predator (which may or may not prey on moose) would move into the area (which may or may not have happened if the wolves weren't there). That doesn't very concretely explain the paradox, although it does sort of hint at an explanation. C, on the other hand, does a much better job: if each moose that is killed would have spread disease (and potentially therefore killed more than one additional moose, plus dying) then the wolves might even be counterproductive.

[tizwvu34]

I was between A and C and did not like C because it said that diseases probably would have spread to other moose. I didn't want to assume that it mean, likely would of spread, thereby killing more moose. Also, just because a moose is diseased doesn't mean it would die.

I suppose A could be discounted because it discourages predators from moving in but doesn't mention what effect wolves would have on the other predators of moose already there before the wolves were introduced.

[Robert Carroll]

tiz,

"Probably" and "likely" are synonymous, so there is no relevant difference between them. Thus, you can take answer choice (C) to express the likelihood of the disease's spreading without the culling of the herd provided by the wolves.

It's true that a diseased moose won't necessarily die, but it's definitely plausible to think that a disease spreading among moose is going to make that population less robust, so something stopping the spread of the disease would be beneficial to the population overall. I think your objection to answer choice (C) is a bit misguided. The answer just needs to provide an explanation of the paradox that removes the mystery and provides some plausible explanation of the situation. Answer choice (C) does that.

You're right that answer choice (A) should have been discounted because it might explain how the wolves are protecting the moose from new predators, but that doesn't mean they're reducing the predators that were already there. It doesn't explain how the prospering wolves (which presumably are prospering at the expense of the herd) are offsetting a detriment to the herd that already existed.

Robert Carroll

[rbitutsky]

Hi,

I didn't eliminate B right away. Is the reason B doesn't work the fact that it simply says a similar phenomenon happened elsewhere, without fully addressing the discrepancy?

[Adam Tyson]

Correct, rbitutsky! This answer still leaves us without an explanation for why this happened. We still don't know why the moose population continued to grow even while the wolves prospered.

This is a classic example of the "thinning the herd" paradox that we have seen many times over the years. A predator or other supposedly harmful element is present in, or introduced into, an environment, and instead of having a harmful effect on the prey species, the prey does better. The resolution is almost always going to have to do with the predator removing the weak members of the prey, strengthening the ones that are left, or otherwise creating a condition that is ultimately beneficial to the "victim."

This can also be seen more broadly as an example of what we might call a "surprisingly good effect" paradox. In that situation, something that should be bad turns out to be good in some way. The resolution is either something like the thinning the herd situation (the bad thing actually does a good thing) or else a variation of "things would have been even better without this thing," meaning the bad thing really is bad, but less bad than the alternative. You'll also sometimes see the "surprisingly bad result" paradox, which is when something that should be having a positive effect appears instead to be having a bad one. There, the resolution is "things would have been worse if not for that good thing."

Get familiar with the common patterns of Resolve the Paradox questions like these, and you'll find that selecting the correct answer gets much, much easier!

[LawSchoolDream]

Correct, rbitutsky! This answer still leaves us without an explanation for why this happened. We still don't know why the moose population continued to grow even while the wolves prospered.

This is a classic example of the "thinning the herd" paradox that we have seen many times over the years. A predator or other supposedly harmful element is present in, or introduced into, an environment, and instead of having a harmful effect on the prey species, the prey does better. The resolution is almost always going to have to do with the predator removing the weak members of the prey, strengthening the ones that are left, or otherwise creating a condition that is ultimately beneficial to the "victim."

This can also be seen more broadly as an example of what we might call a "surprisingly good effect" paradox. In that situation, something that should be bad turns out to be good in some way. The resolution is either something like the thinning the herd situation (the bad thing actually does a good thing) or else a variation of "things would have been even better without this thing," meaning the bad thing really is bad, but less bad than the alternative. You'll also sometimes see the "surprisingly bad result" paradox, which is when something that should be having a positive effect appears instead to be having a bad one. There, the resolution is "things would have been worse if not for that good thing."

Get familiar with the common patterns of Resolve the Paradox questions like these, and you'll find that selecting the correct answer gets much, much easier!

Wow. Was this from the Bible? I don't recall reading about these patterns..I've been reading a lot so can forget..

Is this the reason and is B considered out of scope? Any other indicators to identify out of scope in these?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi LawSchoolDream!

For a resolve the paradox question, the correct answer choice must permit both aspects of the paradox to be true. Answer choice (C) allows for this--it explains why bringing in wolves actually led to an increase in the moose population (because they tended to kill moose with sicknesses that would have otherwise spread to other moose).

Answer choice (B) is partly problematic because it refers to "other" national parks. Regardless of what happens in those other parks, we're still tasked with explaining a paradox about the specific national park in the stimulus. More problematically, answer choice (B) just states that introducing predators has been unsuccessful in controlling the moose population in those other parks. This does nothing to explain how/why introducing predators actually led to an increase in the moose population in the park at hand.