The recent decline in numbers of the Tennessee warbler

[RonPurewal]

Would A still be a weakener if it were written like this

A. The numbers of the Baltimore oriole, a songbird that does not eat budworms, are declining

this consideration, if written as presented here, is totally irrelevant.

remember that the argument is about the warbler, so anything that doesn't ultimately relate back to the warbler has nothing to do with the argument.

[divineacclivity]

When two people argue, to undermine one Is it sufficient If we provide evidence that supports other?

no. if you need to weaken someone's hypothesis, then you actually have to weaken the hypothesis.

Could we conclude the following:
1. D strengthens Kate's argument
So, if the question were "which of the answer choices strengthens Kate's argument", we could safely choose D
2. E weakens Scott's argument

Thanks in advance. Please do reply.

[tim]

neither is true. how do you think D strengthens Kate's argument or E weakens Scott's?

[divineacclivity]

Oh, I messed up the choices in my mind.

I meant to ask if we could conclude the following:
1. B strengthens Scott's argument (or weaken's Kate's)
So, if the question were "which of the answer choices strengthens Scott's argument", we could safely choose D
2. A weakens Scott's argument [gives an analogy with another species that is dependent on plantation & not prey and is also declining]

thanks in advance

[RonPurewal]

Oh, I messed up the choices in my mind.

I meant to ask if we could conclude the following:
1. B strengthens Scott's argument (or weaken's Kate's)

choice (b) doesn't have any effect on scott's argument.

remember -- on these problems, stated facts are not in doubt. when one of the arguments contains a factual statement, you have to treat that statement as, well, a fact. facts can't be "strengthened" or "weakened".

scott's argument depends on the fact that the budworm population is dropping, but it doesn't depend on why that population is dropping.
the fact that the population is dropping has already been established; choice (b) just provides a reason why, and so doesn't help (or hurt) the argument.

So, if the question were "which of the answer choices strengthens Scott's argument", we could safely choose D

i'm not sure how you reached this conclusion, as you appeared to have been discussing choice (b).

2. A weakens Scott's argument [gives an analogy with another species that is dependent on plantation & not prey and is also declining]

yes.

[divineacclivity]

Got it, thank you so much.
[D was a typo; it was supposed to be B.]

[jlucero]

Glad it helped.

[aditya8062]

hi RON
question 1: kindly tell me one thing if A had been as below then will it question Scott's conclusion?

modified A 1 : The numbers of the Baltimore oriole, a songbird that does eat budworms and is as dependent on South America coffee plantations as is the Tennessee warbler, are not declining

after all what is scott saying?

scott is saying: The population of the spruce budworm, the warbler's favourite prey in North America, has been dropping. This is a more likely explanation of the warbler's decline.

so we need to show that ,somehow, there is another bird that does eat spruce budworm ,however the population of this "another bird" is not dropping despite the drop in its food .


question 2: also please tell me if the below mentioned will weaken scott's statement:

modified A 2 : The numbers of the Baltimore oriole, a songbird that does eat budworms and is just as much dependent on them as Tennessee warbler are not declining.

thanks and regards

[RonPurewal]

hi RON
question 1: kindly tell me one thing if A had been as below then will it question Scott's conclusion?

modified A 1 : The numbers of the Baltimore oriole, a songbird that does eat budworms and is as dependent on South America coffee plantations as is the Tennessee warbler, are not declining

This just says "eat budworms". It doesn't indicate that budworms are a preferred food of this bird.
So, no, this doesn't really weaken Scott's hypothesis; it's plausible that, while the warbler suffers from the shortage of budworms, the oriole just says "Whatever" and just eats something else.

[RonPurewal]

modified A 2 : The numbers of the Baltimore oriole, a songbird that does eat budworms and is just as much dependent on them as Tennessee warbler are not declining.

thanks and regards

This could weaken Scott's hypothesis"”if you added one more thing: ...is just as dependent on eating budworms as is the warbler, and has no advantage over the warbler in capturing and eating the budworms.

If you don't have the part in italics, then it's quite plausible that the warblers are dying because the orioles are stealing their food!

[evelynho]

Hi Instructors,

I was stuck on this question deeply, as every time I review this question I will find that Choice 3)[Option - C] is the most appealing or compelling one among the others and I can be 100% sure about this option, but you know, I will get shock when I check the correct answer. When I scan through Option-c, what occurs to my mind is that since drop in the population of the spruce budworm is only temporary, it is assumed that its population will reverse back, and then there is no basis for Scott's argument. That's it, the end of story.
Please help me out and what I should do further to improve on this improper logic thinking way.
Thank you.

Best Regards.
EH

[tim]

What you are missing is that Scott is providing an explanation for why something is currently happening. What may happen in the future is totally irrelevant to Scott's argument.

[liangl431]

i see nobody doubt the B? or i miss read some replys.
for me, i think B make sense, because:
1, we are supposed to argume with scott. whether sth will affect the first one is irrelevant, since this is not a 1 in 2 choice (only 2 ?). there could be many more reasons behine the decline.
2, since we should argue with Scott, then we should focus on what scott says. then the worm's decilne is temporary, like very short time, so it could possibly have no effect on the birds, which might have other source of food.

anyway, this one drives me crazy. i somehow instantly eliminate the option A, since an extra example seems not so popular in the right choice.

thanks in advance for the further explanation.

merci

[RonPurewal]

i think you're talking about choice C, not B.

choice C states that the drop in the budworm population "is EXPECTED to only be temporary". in other words, this is just a GUESS about what might happen IN THE FUTURE.

RIGHT NOW the budworm population is still lower than normal.
we aren't trying to predict the future -- we're trying to explain why things are the way they are RIGHT NOW. so, C is irrelevant.