#8 - The fishing industry cannot currently be relied upon to

[T.B.Justin]

Hi T.B. Justin,

I don't completely follow your explanation, but it looks like you are on the right track. We can test answer choice B by treating it as true and evaluating how it affects the argument. The government wants an accurate count, but B says the industry could find out what they want by turning in only a few birds. The fishing industry still has the same incentive to misreport that caused the original problem.

I hope this helps!

Thanks Claire, I have a couple curious follow ups!

About using "in only"- does that equate to "if only." I think it sounds similar in this instance, can that be used, in general, when coming across "if only?"

Also, suppose in answer choice B it used "only if;" I think that would mean that it is necessary that a few sea birds killed by the nets were examined and not necessarily true that the fishing industry could find out whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins.

[Brook Miscoski]

Justin,

No, "if only" and "in only" are not interchangeable in Claire's explanation nor are they generally interchangeable.

"In only" is not a phrase in Claire's explanation. She uses the expression "turning in," which means "surrendering." Additionally, "only" is a counting concept in her explanation; it's not used as a conditional word.

"If only" is a phrase that is generally used to express a desire to change a past event or to express one of several possible reasons for doing something. Example--"if only I had chosen B, I would have gotten this question correct." Or, "Bob volunteered to deliver the shipment to the mountain village, if only to take in the scenery along the way."

Finally, yes, if you changed "if only" to "only if," that would change B to a conditional:

Learn examine

Successful use and interpretation of English and logical expressions in English requires knowledge of and attentiveness to idiomatic phrasing.

[T.B.Justin]

Hey Brook!

Thank you for these responses, they are truly insightful.

[waffle0808]

Hi,
I chose (A) for this question that states: The seabirds killed by net fishing might be contaminated with several different toxins even if the birds eat only one kind of fish.
My thinking was that if the seabirds might contain different toxins despite eating only one kind of fish, that does not give the fishing industry a clear indication of whether the fish it catches is contaminated with toxins---- as a bird might contain different types of toxins even if there are none coming from the fish, for example. This, in turn, would not give the fishing industry incentive to turn in the seabirds killed.
Please let me know, thank you.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi waffle,

Unfortunately, you are making several unwarranted assumptions here.

First, you’re assuming that birds contaminated with several different toxins means that some of the toxins are not from the fish, which we do not know.

Second, even if some of the toxins are not from the fish, you’re assuming that the scientists couldn’t determine which toxins were or were not from the fish.

Third, you’re assuming that this risk would dissuade the fishermen from reporting.

Remember, that you are looking for the best answer. Here, Answer B provides a straightforward reason why the fishers may it report all of the birds caught and doesn’t require any additional assumptions.