#4 - Data from satellite photographs of the tropical rain

[Arindom]

Hi,

The government is using the data from the satellite to claim that its because of their efforts that deforestation has been halted. While answer choice B clearly gives an alternate cause rather than the government's efforts, what about ans choice D? If one cannot confirm the satellite data the doesn't that weaken the government's claim?

Thanks.

- Arindom

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Arindom,

Thanks for your question.

You are correct that answer choice B is strong because it proposes an alternate cause (which is, as we know from the course books, the most effective way to attack a claim about a causal relationship).

I can understand, too, why D might seem at first to be competitive with B. However, D proves not to be a good answer choice in the end because it only fails to strengthen the claim in the stimulus, rather than actually weakening this claim. The fact that it is impossible to confirm the satellite data by direct observation in the field may seem to undermine a claim based on this satellite data, but actually it does not affect the credibility of the satellite data at all; it only fails to bolster the credibility of the satellite data.

It cannot be said, then, that D, if true, weakens the claim made in the stimulus. Answer choice B, however, definitely does, by proposing a plausible alternative explanation for the reduction in deforestation.

I hope that helps. Keep working hard.

[Arindom]

Gotcha! Thanks, Clay!

[saygracealways]

Hi Powerscore!

I understand that (D) does not weaken the answer choice because we're trying to undermine WHAT the satellite data indicate (what caused the reduction), NOT whether the data are accurate or not (whether or not there has been a reduction).

However, could you please elaborate on in which case (D) might be correct because I understand that the Bible cites "Error in data used to prove causal relationship" as one of the ways to weaken a causal conclusion. What would answer choice (D) need to look like in order for it to be correct?

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

A "problem with the data" type of causal-weaken answer would raise doubts about the data we relied on, saygracealways. If I wanted to take the ideas in answer D and rework them into a good weaken answer, I would change it to something like "Direct observations in the field show very different results than what the satellite data purports to show." If that was true, then I would question the data from the satellite photos, and that would weaken any claim based on that data. But I could also question the data by suggesting that satellite photos are generally not reliable, or that the cameras on the satellites were malfunctioning, or that the photos were taken under poor conditions, etc.

We could also question the data by saying that if the data was correct, something else would be true, but that other thing isn't true. Perhaps "if the implications from the satellite data were correct, then meteorologists would have reported higher humidity, but they say the humidity has dropped" or "if the data was correct, field observations would have confirmed them, but they did not."

Don't just look for "we can't prove that data is good." Look for "here is a reason to doubt that data, or to doubt conclusions based on that data." Hope that helps!

[thescarletterose]

Why is E wrong?

[Amber Thomas]

Hi thescarlettrose!

Our question asks us to select an Answer Choice that most undermines the government's claim that their efforts to enforce anti-deforestation laws were the cause of the decreased rate of deforestation.

Answer Choice E states: "Much of the money that was designated last year for forest preservation has been spent on research and not on enforcement."

The Melonian government specifically states that they spent millions of dollars on law enforcement with respect to forsest burning and cutting. Let's play out a potential scenario: the Melonian government dedicates 10 million dollars to overall forest preservation efforts. 3 million dollars goes to enforcement, and 7 million dollars goes to research. Sure, much of the money dedicated to overall forest preservation may have gone to research, but that doesn't mean that no money went to law enforcement, like the Melonian government states in the stimulus. Therefore, it doesn't undermine the claim that the millions that did go law enforcement were effective.

I hope this helps!