PrepTest 7 Q#14 Section 1 Forum

[ltowns1]

I think I get this question after 30 minutes of looking at it lol.

Conclusion: Hunger does not cause lobsters to eat other lobsters

This is essentially a cause and effect (or I guess cause without effect argument)

You need something to strengthen this argument, and(E) would do it by saying that for one to conclude that lobsters do not eat other lobsters in response to hunger, one would have to assume that fish get hungry in the first place.

Is that the thinking on this question? If not, could someone help me out?

Thanks in advance.

[BP Robert]

Could you post a little more about this question? I'm not familiar with much of PT7.

[PeanutsNJam]

Idk where the hell this fish bullshit is coming from, this questions is about lobsters. But your explanation is right so I also don't know why you're asking for help.

Anyway, my explanation:

This is a necessary assumption question. What you're looking for is something that bridges the gap between the premise and the conclusion, because there is a gap.

Marine Bio Hypothesis: Lobsters are nasty ass fucking cannibals when hungry.

Premise: Lobsters have been observed to exist in close proximity for weeks within traps without eating each other.
Conclusion: Marine biologist needs to go back to school. I.E. Lobsters DO NOT turn into cannibals when hungry.

What is the gap? What is the necessary assumption? The fact that lobsters become hungry when stuck in traps. How do they become hungry? Lack of food.

(E) is the necessary assumption; that lobsters don't have any other food sources, so they become hungry.

Just to go over the others:

(A) We don't give a shit about lobsters not in traps.
(B) What does this have to do with anything I don't even
(C) What does this have to do with anything I don't even
(D) We don't give a shit about other marine species

As you can see, process of elimination works just as well.

[ltowns1]

Idk where the hell this fish bullshit is coming from, this questions is about lobsters. But your explanation is right so I also don't know why you're asking for help.

Anyway, my explanation:

This is a necessary assumption question. What you're looking for is something that bridges the gap between the premise and the conclusion, because there is a gap.

Marine Bio Hypothesis: Lobsters are nasty ass fucking cannibals when hungry.

Premise: Lobsters have been observed to exist in close proximity for weeks within traps without eating each other.
Conclusion: Marine biologist needs to go back to school. I.E. Lobsters DO NOT turn into cannibals when hungry.



What is the gap? What is the necessary assumption? The fact that lobsters become hungry when stuck in traps. How do they become hungry? Lack of food.

(E) is the necessary assumption; that lobsters don't have any other food sources, so they become hungry.

Just to go over the others:

(A) We don't give a shit about lobsters not in traps.
(B) What does this have to do with anything I don't even
(C) What does this have to do with anything I don't even
(D) We don't give a shit about other marine species

As you can see, process of elimination works just as well.

Yes you're right, it was lobsters not fish. Secondly, I said that I wanted to see if I had the right reasoning, that was the point of this thread. Thirdly, I'm sure you can articulate yourself without using all of the profanity...please don't do so again on my thread. I just prefer it. Thanks for the advice though....very helpful.

[ltowns1]

Could you post a little more about this question? I'm not familiar with much of PT7.

Sorry it took me so long to reply Bp Robert, but I think PenutsNJam helped me, but if you still would like me to paraphrase the question for the heck of it I would be happy to.

[Clyde Frog]

Idk where the hell this fish bullshit is coming from, this questions is about lobsters. But your explanation is right so I also don't know why you're asking for help.

Anyway, my explanation:

This is a necessary assumption question. What you're looking for is something that bridges the gap between the premise and the conclusion, because there is a gap.

Marine Bio Hypothesis: Lobsters are nasty ass fucking cannibals when hungry.

Premise: Lobsters have been observed to exist in close proximity for weeks within traps without eating each other.
Conclusion: Marine biologist needs to go back to school. I.E. Lobsters DO NOT turn into cannibals when hungry.

What is the gap? What is the necessary assumption? The fact that lobsters become hungry when stuck in traps. How do they become hungry? Lack of food.

(E) is the necessary assumption; that lobsters don't have any other food sources, so they become hungry.

Just to go over the others:

(A) We don't give a shit about lobsters not in traps.
(B) What does this have to do with anything I don't even
(C) What does this have to do with anything I don't even
(D) We don't give a shit about other marine species

As you can see, process of elimination works just as well.

This is just awful....and gay.

[PeanutsNJam]

What are you some kind of homophobe.