#16 - In most of this forest, the expected outbreak of tree-

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Fill in the Blank, Strengthen Question - The correct answer choice is (A)

The stimulus begins with the author's conclusion: we should allow the outbreak of tree-eating tussock moths to happen.

The author supports this conclusion by saying the moth (and therefore the tree eating) is beneficial where a forrest is unnaturally crowded with immature trees.

We are asked to fill in the blank with an answer choice that would strengthen this argument. As it reads right now, there is an obvious gap between the premise that the moth is sometimes useful and that we should allow the moths to eat a bunch of trees. The only information we're given about when the moths are useful is when a forrest is unnaturally crowded with immature trees. It follows then, that if this forrest was crowded with immature trees, the moths could be useful, and we shouldn't stop the outbreak. So, that's the answer choice we're looking for. The stimulus seems to imply that crowding of immature trees is a negative thing, but we don't need to know this for sure. What we do know is that moths are "useful" if a forest is crowded with immature trees, and we can find the correct answer based off that alone.

Answer choice (A) - this is the correct answer, it exactly matches what we are looking for, it explains why the author feels the moth outbreak would be beneficial.

Answer choice (B) - if moths are useful where foresets are unnaturally crowded with immature trees, but mature trees are usually the first to be eaten by the moths, then why would we allow the outbreak to continue? Remember, we don't need to know whether we want mature trees vs. immature - what we want to do is strengthen the author's argument, and right now that argument hinges on one example of the moths being useful - when there's a lot of immature trees. This answer choice is irrelevant because it only talks about mature trees.

Answer choice (C) - very similar to answer choice (B), it tells us nothing about whether the moths will be helpful, it only explains how forrest fires might have caused unnatural crowding of immature trees in the first place.

Answer choice (D) - this information doesn't strengthen the argument - perhaps the outbreak is certain to occur without intervention, but that doesn't explain why the author thinks we shouldn't intervene

Answer choice (E) - the author isn't saying we should counter the moth at all, so what does it matter if there's no way to do so effectively? the author's argument isn't that we can't effectively stop the moths so might as well let them have at it - the author argues that there is a situation where the moths are useful, and that's why we should let them free in this forest

[kfactor901@gmail.com]

I got this question correct but is A right if we think that moths function the same as forest fires in controlling the number of immature trees?

[David Boyle]

I got this question correct but is A right if we think that moths function the same as forest fires in controlling the number of immature trees?

Hello kfactor901@gmail.com,

That seems to be more or less right. The moths may not function exactly the same as forest fires, but close enough, for the sake of the argument.

Hope this helps,
David

[bli2016]

Hi, this question sort of threw me off guard, and a part of me thinks that it is probably a very easy question but I am perhaps overthinking it. When I prephrased the answer in my head, I was thinking something along the lines of "moths mostly feed on immature trees" or something along those lines but there was nothing in the answer choices that resembled that, so I chose B because I thought that the moths would still be beneficial due to the fact that the overall number of trees would be decreased.

Could you explain how to think through this problem, and where I went wrong? Thank you!

[Ricky_Hutchens]

Hi bli2016,

Let's start with discussing your logic that it would still be beneficial due to the fact that the overall number of trees would be decreased. The stimulus tells us that moths are helpful in forest that are unnaturally crowded with immature trees, it doesn't say anything that are unnaturally crowed by all trees. If it did say that, your logic would be stronger. Instead, we are told specifically that the month helps when there are too many immature trees. Based on the stimulus, it is impossible to say if the month is helpful when there are too many mature trees or even just too many trees at all.

If the moths eat the mature trees first, it would not help with the overcrowding of immature trees. But even over half of the forest is overcrowded by immature trees and the moth is helpful in that situation, then that is strong support for the conclusion that we shouldn't to stop the moths.

[tld5061]

Hi,

Why is C wrong?

Thanks!

[amacmill]

I'm struggling with this question because I don't understand why A does anything to strengthen the stimulus. I feel like the answer choice should mention something about what the moths do to help the immature tree crowding, and all A does is quantifies the amount of immature trees. However, we already know there are too many immature trees, so I don't see why A helps.

[AthenaDalton]

Hi amacmill,

Thanks for your question!

We don't actually know that this forest is overly crowded with immature trees -- we only learn that from answer choice (A). The stimulus says that (1) a certain species of moth is beneficial in forests that have been over-crowded with immature trees and (2) that we should not attempt to combat the increase in this moth species. Such a conclusion only makes sense if it turns out that this forest is crowded with immature trees. Answer choice (A) states exactly that, thereby completing the argument.

I hope this helps clarify things. Good luck studying!

Athena

[AthenaDalton]

Hi,

Why is C wrong?

Thanks!

Hi tld,

Answer choice (C) is wrong because it doesn't provide any support to the conclusion that we should allow the outbreak of tree-eating tussock moths to continue unabated. The stimulus tells us that these moths are beneficial in forests that are "unnaturally crowded" with immature trees (we can infer that unnatural crowing of immature trees is a bad thing from the tone of the passage). We also learn that in forests where fires have been suppressed, there are too many immature trees.

Answer choice (C) tells us that if a forest fire were to occur, there would be even more immature trees.

Answer choice (C) appears to contradict the statement in the passage that forests which haven't experienced fires have too many immature trees. If a lack of forest fires produces too many immature trees, why would a forest fire kill off the mature trees and leave the immature ones behind? It would seem that both forest fires and a lack of forest fires will produce a glut of immature trees.

Answer choice (C) also doesn't do anything to support the conclusion of this argument: that the tree-eating moth should be left alone to kill trees. Even if we learn that forest fires will kill mature trees, this doesn't support the contention that we should allow moths to kill the immature trees in the forest.

Good luck studying!

Athena

[Khodi7531]

Isn't A being redundant? "suppression of forest fires has left the forest unnaturally croweded with immature trees" ...it's saying already that it is "unnaturally crowded" due to the suppression of forest fires.


So why would an answer like A, need to be something that strengthens? I understand that it adds to that sentiment but still not sure how it "completes the passage". I chose B assuming that we needed an answer to show the relation between moths and trees, and how the benefits of these moths are strengthened while dealing with the "crowded mature trees".


Can an admin please get back to me on this?