- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#26190
Complete Question Explanation
Weaken—#%. The correct answer choice is (B)
This question, unlike most weaken questions, asks for an answer choice that attacks the evidence offered in support of the conclusion, rather than simply the argument itself. Most correct answers on Weaken questions directly impact the conclusion, rather than the truth of the premises.
The conclusion in this stimulus is that the rehabilitation effort for the otters was not worthwhile. This is because only 18% of the otters counted were rehabilitated and survived. The author treats this as a low number, and goes on to indicate that five times as many otters died, but were never found. This means that five times as many otters were never counted. The author implies that with these additional otters included in the figures, the 18% rehabilitation rate should actually be a much lower number. This seems to further support the author’s argument, as the effort seems even less worthwhile if less than 18% of all otters affected by the oil spill are successfully rehabilitated.
While the argument cites specific observations for the number of otters counted in the program, it merely estimates the number of otters that died immediately and were not found. The argument provides no evidence for this estimate, and it provides no information for how the estimate was reached. There does not appear to be any way to estimate the number of otters who were not found.
Answer choice (A): The question in this answer choice is irrelevant. The argument here concerns the rehabilitation effort regarding sea otters affected by the oil spill. Any otters not affected are irrelevant to this particular argument.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. As stated above, it does not appear that there is any way to estimate how many dead otters were not counted in this study. The author provides no additional evidence to show how he/she arrived at this figure. If the otters died but were never found, how can the author know, with any precision, how many actually died? The question in this answer choice undermines the reliability of the evidence offered in support of the conclusion, which is why answer choice (B) is correct.
Answer choice (C): Even if the process did involve some of these otters that were not affected by the oil spill, it would have no bearing on the evidence used to support this argument. The numerical evidence given in the argument concerns only the live and dead otters that were affected by the spill.
Answer choice (D): Once again, this answer choice is incorrect as it discusses other species while the evidence in the argument is based solely on one specific affected species: sea otters. Any other species are irrelevant to an evaluation of this evidence.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice is tempting yet wrong. The cost per otter rehabilitated would be very pertinent in evaluating the strength of the conclusion of this argument. After all, the author concludes that the rehabilitation effort “was not worthwhile.” Therefore the cost per otter rehabilitated may be important to making a conclusion about the worth of the rehabilitation effort. However, the question stem is directing you to attack the evidence used in support of this conclusion, and that means attacking the numerical data. The cost per otter rehabilitated has no impact on whether or not the numerical evidence is strong or weak evidence.
Weaken—#%. The correct answer choice is (B)
This question, unlike most weaken questions, asks for an answer choice that attacks the evidence offered in support of the conclusion, rather than simply the argument itself. Most correct answers on Weaken questions directly impact the conclusion, rather than the truth of the premises.
The conclusion in this stimulus is that the rehabilitation effort for the otters was not worthwhile. This is because only 18% of the otters counted were rehabilitated and survived. The author treats this as a low number, and goes on to indicate that five times as many otters died, but were never found. This means that five times as many otters were never counted. The author implies that with these additional otters included in the figures, the 18% rehabilitation rate should actually be a much lower number. This seems to further support the author’s argument, as the effort seems even less worthwhile if less than 18% of all otters affected by the oil spill are successfully rehabilitated.
While the argument cites specific observations for the number of otters counted in the program, it merely estimates the number of otters that died immediately and were not found. The argument provides no evidence for this estimate, and it provides no information for how the estimate was reached. There does not appear to be any way to estimate the number of otters who were not found.
Answer choice (A): The question in this answer choice is irrelevant. The argument here concerns the rehabilitation effort regarding sea otters affected by the oil spill. Any otters not affected are irrelevant to this particular argument.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. As stated above, it does not appear that there is any way to estimate how many dead otters were not counted in this study. The author provides no additional evidence to show how he/she arrived at this figure. If the otters died but were never found, how can the author know, with any precision, how many actually died? The question in this answer choice undermines the reliability of the evidence offered in support of the conclusion, which is why answer choice (B) is correct.
Answer choice (C): Even if the process did involve some of these otters that were not affected by the oil spill, it would have no bearing on the evidence used to support this argument. The numerical evidence given in the argument concerns only the live and dead otters that were affected by the spill.
Answer choice (D): Once again, this answer choice is incorrect as it discusses other species while the evidence in the argument is based solely on one specific affected species: sea otters. Any other species are irrelevant to an evaluation of this evidence.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice is tempting yet wrong. The cost per otter rehabilitated would be very pertinent in evaluating the strength of the conclusion of this argument. After all, the author concludes that the rehabilitation effort “was not worthwhile.” Therefore the cost per otter rehabilitated may be important to making a conclusion about the worth of the rehabilitation effort. However, the question stem is directing you to attack the evidence used in support of this conclusion, and that means attacking the numerical data. The cost per otter rehabilitated has no impact on whether or not the numerical evidence is strong or weak evidence.