#23 - Biologists found that off the northeast coast of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (B)

The apparent paradox in the stimulus is that off the northeast coast of a certain country, the P-plankton population has recently dropped 10 percent, and fish species X, Y and Z are beginning to show extraordinarily high death rates. At the same time, no other species in the ecosystem appear to be affected. Additionally the stimulus indicates that the difficulties faced by the P-plankton and fish species X, Y and Z may be related, but the exact nature of the connection is unknown.

This situation is surprising, because there is reason to think that if there were something in the region causing this effect on the P-plankton and fish species X, Y and Z, then it would have some effect on the other species in the ecosystem. However, that does not appear to be the case.

The correct answer in this Resolve the Paradox question will provide information that actively resolves the paradox. Since the paradox involves a difference between P-plankton and fish species X, Y and Z on one hand, and the other species in the ecosystem on the other, the correct answer will describe what causes the groups to be different.

Answer choice (A): This choice is incorrect because such a pattern of dumping chemicals could affect all the species in the ecosystem, thus showing a way in which the two groups are similar.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This choice is correct because it establishes a cause acting only on the P-plankton and fish species X, Y and Z, without any mention that it is affecting the other species in the ecosystem. Since this choice makes one group different than the other in a way that is material to the paradox, i.e., an attack on the physical condition of P-plankton and fish species X, Y and Z, it helps to explain the biologists’ findings.

Answer choice (C): As with choice (A), all the species in the ecosystem would be exposed to this powerful toxin, which makes the two groups similar, rather than different. While the choice expressly states the toxin is having a negative effect on the P-Plankton, it does not explain the death rate of fish species X, Y and Z, which only sometimes eat the P-Plankton.

Answer choice (D): Unless we know there is something unique about the feeding habits of fish species X, Y and Z, which information we are not provided, it would seem the factors causing fish species X, Y and Z to suffer widespread starvation would affect other species in the ecosystem as well. Therefore, this choice appears to make the two groups similar, rather than showing how they are different. Further, this answer does not explain the decrease in the P-Plankton population.

Answer choice (E): Since the effect of global warming would disturb the climatic conditions of the ocean all along the northeast coast of the country, this choice makes the groups the same, and is therefore incorrect. Also, and importantly, we have no reason to think that global warming could produce the biologists’ findings.

[moshei24]

Hi, I chose (D) for this question, and I don't really see why (B) is a better answer. The questions says that the deaths of the plankton and of the fish is believed to be connected. Wouldn't that mean that one's death affects the other one? In (B), the deaths seem to not be affecting one another, while in (D), the death of the plankton is increasing the deaths of the fish.

Though, is the issue with (D) that it's not explaining how the plankton increasingly died? It's only explaining that the fish are starving and getting worse because of less plankton but it gives no reason as to how the plankton are dying. While, (B) explains that the issue is that a bacteria is causing all these deaths, and since the question says that the nature of the connection is unknown, it might just be that they are both being hurt by the same bacteria, and that's the connection, not that they're causing each other to die?

Can you clarify this question for me, please?

Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Hey Moshe,

In that one, the question asks for the choice that best explains the biologists findings--those findings show high death rates among the regions P-plankton, and fishes X, Y, and Z--with no other species affected.

Answer choice B provides a reasonable explanation, which would explain why only the plankton and those specific fish are affected, and no other species nearby.

The problem with D is that widespread starvation would likely affect other species as well.

I hope that's helpful--let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[moshei24]

(D) is implying that widespread starvation isn't only to X, Y, and Z?

And the fact that both species are being affected by the same bacteria is how they're connected?

Also, in (B), we could assume that what's happening to the fish and plankton is causing them to die? Because it isn't explicit...

Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Hi Moshe,

That's right--widespread starvation in the region would affect other species, beyond those three types of fish and that one type of plankton. And as for B, it isn't explicit but it does provide the best explanation for the biologists' findings.

I hope that's helpful!

~Steve

[moshei24]

Is it implicit? Or do I just need to see it as being the best answer of the choices given?

[Steve Stein]

Hi Moshe,

Well, to your first point, if those three species are all experiencing widespread starvation within the region, that wouldn't likely be limited to just those three. Regardless, this choice doesn't provide any explanation for the loss of the plankton.

I hope that's helpful--let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[moshei24]

Right.

I mean is the reasoning for answer choice (B) implicit - that those issue caused them to die, or is it just the right answer because it's the best answer that's given?

Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

Hey Moshe,

The question only requires the choice that best explains the biologists' findings.

Looking at answer choice B, you wouldn't necessarily know that those species affected would eventually die. But the right answer doesn't have to guarantee any particular outcome--just help explain the biologists' findings.

I hope that's helpful--let me know.

Thanks!

~Steve

[moshei24]

Aha, it contributes to a resolution. Thanks!