#24 - Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[gavelgirl]

Hello,

Would Answer E be correct if instead of "predators," it specified Typhlodromus' relation to the C Mites?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi gavelgirl!

Yes, answer choice (E) would be better if it referred more specifically to Typhlodromus being used to control cyclamen mites on strawberry plants. As it is, answer choice (E) is much too broad to be supported by the passage. We only have one very specific example of when a predator can be more effective at controlling a pest population than pesticides, but that does not mean that this is generally the case.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[BMM2021]

Hi,

Could the reasoning supporting C be fleshed out some more? I don't see how the first sentence of the passage supports answer C: believing that sometimes natural predators are more efficient than pesticides didn't, in my mind, create a conditional argument in which the only scenario in which the author would support insecticide use is when natural predators are inadequate. There could be plenty of reasons that the author might favor insecticides over predators in scenarios not involving T and C mites, so answer C just felt overly strong to me. Because the author never really provides parameters for her preferences, we could just as easily believe that answer D is true - since the first sentence of the passage is concerned with the relative effectiveness of a pest-controlling practice.

I'm wondering what makes the conditional in answer C more true than that in answer D? Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

BMM2021,

You're missing that answer choice (C) says "certain pest populations". So your hypothetical that the author may have a different opinion about different pests is irrelevant - we need the conditional to apply to at least one pest population for this answer choice to be supported. You're conceding that it applies to the mites in the passage. That's good enough to prove it.

Robert Carroll

[BMM2021]

Thanks, Robert. I'm actually unsure why we might concede that about the T and C mite population too, however. The passage cites the C/T mite example as a case in point of the claim that there is sometimes no more effective means of controlling a pest population than natural predators. So I certainly understand the author would say that T mites are the most effective means of controlling C mites when it comes to strawberry field infestations. Does that also imply that the author believes that under no circumstances should C mites in a strawberry field be treated with insecticides instead of being left to their T mite predators unless the T mites were to, for some reason, become inadequate in controlling C mites? I only feel lost on answering that question because the author offers no perspective on when insecticide should or shouldn't be used, which seems to leave room for all types of hypotheticals. If an insecticide was created tomorrow that was just as effective in controlling C mites and T mites are, I don't think we could determine how the author would feel about that (leading to my confusion with answer D).

I know we're just looking for the closest fitting answer in this case, but I feel like I missing the distinction between C and D here. Thanks for any help.

BMM2021,

You're missing that answer choice (C) says "certain pest populations". So your hypothetical that the author may have a different opinion about different pests is irrelevant - we need the conditional to apply to at least one pest population for this answer choice to be supported. You're conceding that it applies to the mites in the passage. That's good enough to prove it.

Robert Carroll

[Adam Tyson]

It might help to look at this question as a "soft" Must Be True question, BMM2021, also known as a Most Strongly Supported question. The question doesn't ask for an answer that the author would be certain to agree with, but rather to pick the one answer out of the five presented that the author would be most likely to agree with. That means the correct answer doesn't need to be absolutely proven by the text, but only supported more than the others.

There is at least some support that the author would say "sure, that's true" in response to answer C, as Robert laid out in his response. After all, the author argued in favor of using predators instead of pesticides in at least one case, right? But there is no support for any of the other answers, as each of them is either too broad or else relies on information that is not found within the passage. Since answer C is the only answer that has any support, it fits the criteria of the question: it is the one answer out of the choices given with which the author would be most likely to agree, if we base that analysis solely on the text of the passage.

Don't hold out for perfect, proven answers when the question asks for what is most likely or most strongly supported. It's okay to just pick the answer that you hate the least!

[mollylynch]

I am having trouble finding support for this in the passage. I thought the author was totally against pesticides. Especially when he says "in this instance is a clear case in which using a pesticide would do far more harm than good" so how do we know he would agree with using a pesticide if predators are inadequate?

[Adam Tyson]

You may be misinterpreting that answer choice, Molly. It's not about the author supporting the use of pesticides, but about NOT using pesticides as long as the use of a natural predator would suffice. It's not "if predators don't work, then use pesticides." It's "If predators work, don't use pesticides."

[mollylynch]

I see. So the author is saying, in this instance, using predators is better than using insecticides. However, in other cases, if predators don't work then insecticides should be used?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi mollylynch!

Answer choice (C) can be diagrammed as:

Insecticides Predators work

That is, if insecticides are used, then this should be because predators haven't worked. This could also be diagrammed as:

Insecticides Predators work

In other words, insecticides should never be used if predators work. Note that this is not saying the following:

Predators work Insecticides

It is not saying that if predators don't work, then use insecticides.