- Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:25 am
#18
Hi bkloss,
I’ve been asked about this question before, mostly by people who think (D) should be the correct answer. Those students often make a claim along the lines that, "The natural habitat of amphibians has nothing to do with the population of the amphibians." This claim often sounds reasonable at first, but it is one that LSAC has proven to disagree with, and one that stretches the bounds of common sense. Taking the example to the extreme, if there was no natural habitat for amphibians, there would definitely be an effect on population. Although the degree of reduction and timing of the corresponding effect may be in question, LSAC has, in this question and in others, shown that they believe that the average person understands and accepts that habitat size does affect population.
So, in (D), assuming that habitat size is important, then knowing that it has not decreased in the past century means that is one more reason we can’t blame for amphibian population decline. And, in causal arguments, when you eliminate other possible causes, you strengthen the possibility that the stated cause is indeed the cause. To make a very rough analogy, let’s say we have 5 people in a room, and we make the claim that one of them—say Steve—is the leader without actually knowing he is the leader. If someone comes in and says, that guy there—James—is not the leader, that actually supports our claim that Steve is the leader (mainly because it increases the chances that Steve is the leader). Although this example doesn’t work with the causal nature of the problem, it does show how eliminating a possible explanation helps strengthen an argument.
Does that help? Please let me know.
Thanks,
