Q10 - Each year, thousands of seabirds

[acechaowang]

Could anyone help rule out choice C? i don't understand why C is wrong. Thanks a lot!

[ohthatpatrick]

Does Jonathan question the appropriateness of interfering with wildlife in any way?

Lydia is proposing a specific way of 'interfering' with wildlife: having fishing companies fun veterinary treatment for injured birds.

Jonathan questions the appropriateness of THIS proposal, not ANY interference with wildlife.

When a question is asking you about what was actually said / assumed, you should always be very wary of extreme words in the answer choice. It's an easy way for the test writers to write an incorrect answer choice that sounds very relevant to what was discussed but just goes too far.

To get a little more nuanced, Jonathan does seem to object to interfering with wildlife in any way, if it means that the wildlife will no longer be able to live in the wild.

If (C) said that, it would be accurate.

Hope this helps.

[acechaowang]

after reviewing the question and your post, i understand it better! Jonathan only questions the appropriateness of the action in a very limited case, but answer C said that he questions the appropriateness of the action in all cases. Since limited case is not a match with the broad case, it is therefore wrong.

[rawatnaman]

Hi ,

I do understand why C is wrong. I also missed the part of " any way " but I really can't comprehend what the sentence in Answer choice D " by discussing its implications for only those birds that it serves least well" means in terms of comprehension of the question?

Am I correct in understanding that, it is referring to the fact that Jonathan only discusses birds that are seriously injured and can no longer survive the wild. He is missing the other birds that might actually benefit from the treatment.

[ohthatpatrick]

That's exactly right!

Let me put up a complete explanation, for posterity.

Question Type: Describe the Argument/Method/Technique/Response

Task: Pick the answer choice that matches the stimulus

Here, Lydia proposed that fishing companies should have to pay for medical treatment for birds injured in their equipment.

Jonathan objects to the proposal, bringing up the fact that "the most seriously injured birds" would never return to the wild, even with medical treatment. He suggests that medical treatment would extend the birds' lives but not allow them to go back to the wild. Since all wildlife should be able to live in the wild (according to him), the proposal would have an objectionable effect.

Let's see what part of each wrong answer choice can't be matched with the stimulus.

(A) There is no personal attack. In fact, he commends her on a personal level for having admirable feelings.

(B) There is no suggestion that Lydia's proposal is really intended to benefit Lydia. And Jonathan seems to believe that Lydia DOES have real sympathy.

(C) Jonathan doesn't make a sweeping statement that it is NEVER appropriate to interfere with wildlife ("in any way"). He is simply saying it would be inappropriate to interfere with wildlife in the way that Lydia is currently proposing.

(D) He does attempt to discredit her proposal ("your proposal should not be adopted") and he only discusses the implications for the birds the proposal would serve least well ("treatment of the most seriously injured birds would inhumanely prolong their lives"). This is correct.

(E) He doesn't evade discussion of her proposal. He attacks it head on ("your proposal should not be adopted because ...")

You are correct that Jonathan's response might be flawed / weakened by responding with something like, "Jonathan ... I agree that the MOST injured birds would not truly be helped by this proposal. But what about all the other injured birds? If they are significantly helped, and the most injured birds are a lost cause anyway, then isn't the proposal worthwhile?"

But be careful .. you usually shouldn't even be trying to figure out flaws/objections/assumptions when you're just doing a DESCRIBE question. All we're concerned with is matching the correct answer to the stimulus and finding the broken wording in each incorrect answer that does NOT match the stimulus.

Hope this helps.