PT 16-S2-Q21

User avatar
Bosh
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:15 pm

PT 16-S2-Q21

Postby Bosh » Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:39 pm

Can someone really help me with this strengthening question? I really feel like (A) weakens the argument that the Gypsy moth's population is declining since there is a bit of gypsy that are unaffected and is increasing. I chose B but I can understand why it's wrong since we don't care about about the effect of the poisonous fungus on other insect. More like out of scope. But why is A strengthening the argument?

User avatar
mosessta
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:31 am

Re: PT 16-S2-Q21

Postby mosessta » Fri Jul 12, 2013 1:59 pm

Ok, so the goal is to reduce the number of gypsy moths. The plan to achieve such a reduction was introduce a fungus that was poisonous to gypsy moth caterpillars. After the plan was implemented, the total number of caterpillars and adult moths has declined. The entomologists thus conclude that the decline was due to the plan.

Before attacking the answers, you might look for the gap in the reasoning. Just because the total number of moths and caterpillars declined, how do we know that the decline was due to the actual fungus that targeted gypsy moth caterpillars?

Answer A says a strain of gypsy moths whose caterpillars are unaffected by the fungus has increased its share of the total gypsy moth population. This suggests that the fungus that was introduced did, in fact, kill off a number of gypsy moth caterpillars who were affected by the fungus. As a result, we have strengthened the argument that the decline in moths and caterpillars was a result of the introduction of the fungus, which seems to have killed off those gypsy moth caterpillars affected by it.

The best way to arrive at answer A, though, is to eliminate B, C, D, and E, none of which are the least bit compelling. Answer A doesn't match any prephrase you might have, but the answer makes perfect sense.

User avatar
Bosh
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:15 pm

Re: PT 16-S2-Q21

Postby Bosh » Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:17 pm

mosessta wrote:Ok, so the goal is to reduce the number of gypsy moths. The plan to achieve such a reduction was introduce a fungus that was poisonous to gypsy moth caterpillars. After the plan was implemented, the total number of caterpillars and adult moths has declined. The entomologists thus conclude that the decline was due to the plan.

Before attacking the answers, you might look for the gap in the reasoning. Just because the total number of moths and caterpillars declined, how do we know that the decline was due to the actual fungus that targeted gypsy moth caterpillars?

Answer A says a strain of gypsy moths whose caterpillars are unaffected by the fungus has increased its share of the total gypsy moth population. This suggests that the fungus that was introduced did, in fact, kill off a number of gypsy moth caterpillars who were affected by the fungus. As a result, we have strengthened the argument that the decline in moths and caterpillars was a result of the introduction of the fungus, which seems to have killed off those gypsy moth caterpillars affected by it.

The best way to arrive at answer A, though, is to eliminate B, C, D, and E, none of which are the least bit compelling. Answer A doesn't match any prephrase you might have, but the answer makes perfect sense.


Thank you very much, your explanation makes complete sense to me now.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bigv, jdanz, Macallan, ngogirl12, Pozzo and 15 guests