- Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:01 am
#26701
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
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