PT 16. Sect. 3 #1 Forum
- cloudhidden
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:29 am
PT 16. Sect. 3 #1
(D) clearly weakens this argument more than any other choices, but does (A) weaken as well? The fact that it appears first in the choices could make such a trap very tempting.
- Balthy
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:28 pm
Re: PT 16. Sect. 3 #1
A can apply to other spiders as well, so it doesn't necessarily weaken the argument. D applies only to stickier webs.
EDIT: That was off a bit. (A) doesn't tell you whether other spider's habitats also contain non-flying insects, so it doesn't weaken the argument.
EDIT: That was off a bit. (A) doesn't tell you whether other spider's habitats also contain non-flying insects, so it doesn't weaken the argument.
-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:01 pm
Re: PT 16. Sect. 3 #1
The stimulus says painted spiders are a more successful predator than its competitors. Why? Because stickier webs are more efficent at trapping insects that fly into them.
A is irrelevant because in order to weaken the stimulus you have challenge either the conclusion or the premises. A does neither, it simply tells us that there are other species living in the same habitat as painted spiders. A also doesn't speak to how effective the webs are to catching to those non-flying species. If the webs effectively catch the non-flying species than the stimulus wouldn't be weakened by that choice.
A is irrelevant because in order to weaken the stimulus you have challenge either the conclusion or the premises. A does neither, it simply tells us that there are other species living in the same habitat as painted spiders. A also doesn't speak to how effective the webs are to catching to those non-flying species. If the webs effectively catch the non-flying species than the stimulus wouldn't be weakened by that choice.
- cloudhidden
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 9:29 am
Re: PT 16. Sect. 3 #1
Yeah, I rationalized that it could but does not necessarily weaken. I'm just getting punctilious in understanding why every answer choice is wrong. 

-
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:01 pm
Re: PT 16. Sect. 3 #1
cloudhidden wrote:Yeah, I rationalized that it could but does not necessarily weaken. I'm just getting punctilious in understanding why every answer choice is wrong.
That's not a bad thing to do. Just don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. Know what the objective of the question is and if the answer choice fulfills that objective.
- flem
- Posts: 12882
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:44 pm
Re: PT 16. Sect. 3 #1
Remember that the phrase "not all" is total weaksauce. What if there are 100 insects and 99 of them fly?
When I approach a weaken question, I keep an eye out for an answer choice that shows a detriment to whatever thing they are talking about. So this bro is like "Man, this webs are so sticky, and that's pretty sweet." At this point I'm like, "ayo breh, maybe there's a big drawback that makes these sticky webs not so awesome."
D) is right in line with my thought process.
When I approach a weaken question, I keep an eye out for an answer choice that shows a detriment to whatever thing they are talking about. So this bro is like "Man, this webs are so sticky, and that's pretty sweet." At this point I'm like, "ayo breh, maybe there's a big drawback that makes these sticky webs not so awesome."
D) is right in line with my thought process.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login