Each year red-winged blackbirds stop in a certain region of Midland Pr

A) if they are the first birds to stop in the spring season, hence they are the fisrt to eat the poisoned rice and not the rare species.
go for A

I really can't get any answer choice that makes sense.

By POE:

A - Doesn't justify. Even if blackbirds are the first to stop, it doesn't mean they would eat up all the poisoned rice.

C - Talks about native birds. Concern is about rare migratory birds.

D - Irrelevant.

E - It makes no sense if the poison is not detectable.


I am left with B.

The assumption that needs to be taken for B to be correct is that the word 'Threaten' used in the passage implies killing of the birds. On assuming this to be true, one can say that because blackbirds would be incapable of producing eggs, their population in the fall would decrease.
Regarding the other species, this would also impact them but would not be 'threatening'.

Any other comments to solve out this?

I am not sure why A should be the correct option .
Other options too do not make sense .
kinjiGC ,your thoughts ?


Regards,
Manish Khare

totall thought the same. This is weak question.
I went for E, thinking that the agency approved just to relieve the farmers, knowing that poisoned rice would not harm any bird.

I chose B over A.Since A talks about blackbirds being the first birds to be present,itdoes not infer that the poison will affect only the first bird,even though it is mentioned poison is in small amount.As the author uses word threaten ,i feel other migratory birds are threatened by this as well,no matter if they come after black birds.
I eliminate C ,since we are considering native birds in this option while argument discusses aboutmigratory birds.
Experts please assist.

egmat

Can you please present your thoughts over this question. I m really confused between option A and B as for A to be correct, we need to assume that the blackbirds will eat up all the poisonous rice and nothing would be left for the other birds coming to that region. Also, how is it possible for birds to be so selective in eating rice in the crop fields. I will appreciate any leads.

generis

the A option has a logical flaw in my opinion. it sounds as if blackbirds after stoping by midland province would eat ALL THE POISONED RICE. it easily possible that they eat some part of poisoned rice

isnt it A option silly justfication ? it sounds as if blackbirds are PIGS rather than birds

Dear dave13 ,

Please read more closely two types of BIrd species are being discussed as highlighted -

Each year red-winged blackbirds stop in a certain region of Midland Province on their spring and fall migrations. In the fall, they eat a significant portion of the province’s sunflower crop. This year Midland farmers sought permits to set out small amounts of poisoned rice during the blackbirds’ spring stop in order to reduce the fall blackbird population. Some residents voiced concern that the rice could threaten certain species of rare migratory birds. Nevertheless, the wildlife agency approved the permits.

Certain species of Migratory Birds = Red-winged blackbirds + Other species of Birds( SOme of which may be endangered).

Now, we know from this staement that red-winged blackbirds are the first species of migratory birds to Midland , so if poison is used the Red-winged blackbirds will be the first ones to be affected....

Now, if Red-winged blackbirds are not endangered species , then the permit of POisioning rice will not have any undersired effect...

Hope this helps..

... and question stem does not apparently consider blackbirds as non-rare species

Note: This question uses the phrase "most helps to justify." This question is a strengthen question.
We are not being asked for an answer that is sufficient to prove the conclusion.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to justify the wildlife agency’s approval of the permits, given the concerns voiced by some residents?
"Given the concerns": which of the choices accounts for or decreases the danger to rare birds and thus makes the wildlife agents' approval more justifiable?

The danger to rare migratory birds needs justification. If the plan is not likely to hurt the rare birds, poisoning the blackbirds is justified.

dave13 ,
I agree with your analysis. I do not think you were confused about there being two (or many) different species of birds.

In fact, I think your point was that Option A assumes too much and hence cannot
prevent danger to the rare birds about which "some residents" are concerned.

If blackbirds do not eat all of the rice, the small populations of rare birds will eat the rest of the rice.

Just as troubling, I can make the case that the blackbirds likely will not eat ANY of the rice.

• Option A assumes that the blackbirds will eat ALL the rice
The rare birds have small populations. Even a little leftover rice could kill the rare birds off.

Option A seems to assume without warrant that the blackbirds will eat all of the rice.
Premises in the passage logically suggest that the blackbirds may not eat ANY of the rice. That is,

• We don't know whether blackbirds will eat ANY of the rice.
In fact, blackbirds obviously enjoy eating—sunflowers.

Why would the blackbirds suddenly abandon the food that
they enjoy thoroughly and eat rice instead?

Worse, presumably, the rare migratory birds do not eat sunflowers.
The passage mentions no such fact. The phrase "concern that the rice could threaten certain species of rare migratory birds"
suggests that these rare birds probably do eat rice.

The rare migratory birds might be the only birds that eat rice.

Blackbirds like sunflowers. We do not know whether blackbirds like rice.

Logic suggests that if we DO know that blackbirds like to eat sunflowers,
and we do NOT know whether blackbirds like to eat rice,
then the most logical conclusion is that blackbirds will eat sunflowers.

Further, as far as we know, only blackbirds destroy sunflower crops.
Now the blackbirds will be happily gobbling sunflowers;
a significant portion of the farmers crops will be ruined again;
AND the rare migratory birds that seem not to like sunflowers WILL eat the rice.

Great. We have a plan that is not only unproductive but also counterproductive.
"Doing more damage" (ruined crops, fat blackbirds, AND extinguished populations of rare birds)
is not "the most justification."

Option A, however, is the best of a bad lot. If:
-- the blackbirds arrive first; AND
-- the blackbirds eat rice instead of sunflowers; AND
-- the blackbirds eat all of the rice; OR
-- the farmers "hoover" up the leftover rice
THEN the rare birds are less likely to be harmed.
This answer alone gives at least a theoretical possibility
that the rare birds will not be harmed.

I am glad to see such an uncharacteristically terrible official example.
Good reminder: we are looking for 4 bad answers.
The other answer could be very good or, as here, could be really awful but the least bad.

Option A "most helps to justify" the wildlife agents' decision.

I would dismiss Option B in a heartbeat because it does not address the problem of danger to the rare birds,
and, unlike A's possible saving grace, has no promise of success.
But 20% of people who answered chose (B).

Option B makes the danger to rare birds worse and thus less justifiable.
Destroying the reproductive capabilities of birds already few in number
could wipe the population out entirely. Destroying whole populations of rare birds does not strengthen the wildlife agents' case.

Option C is a gift. Toss it. Not relevant. If not relevant, not a justification. Both blackbirds and the rare birds are migratory.

Option D is another gift. Toss it. We don't care about the farmers' fines or lack thereof. We care about the danger to rare migratory birds.
Not relevant, and not a justification.

Option E is yet another gift. No detectable taste or smell = birds WILL eat the rice = danger to the rare birds is still there.
Does not justify at all.

Option A is the only option that offers at least the possibility that rare birds will come to little or no harm,
thus justifying the wildlife agents' approval of permits for the use of poisonous rice.

These questions are really hard to write. I am oddly glad to see such a terrible question.
It is a good reminder that the job is: process of elimination.
As long as the option can possibly justify the wildlife agency's decision (because the four others do not),
the option is left standing is the answer.

Answer A

generis I think there is one more assumption that black birds (BB) are not rare birds. If we consider BB to be rare birds then I dont think A can strengthen the argument.

I think the stem implied that BB are not rare birds, since their population is large enough to "eat a significant portion of the province’s sunflower crop".
Moreover, the farmers only planned to "set out small amount of poisoned rice during the blackbirds' spring stop in order to reduce the fall blackbird population".
So there would be a "small amount of rice", which would not remain any when the other rare migratory birds arrive at the area.

Based on those points, I stay with (A).

they should have mentioned the red winged blackbird is not a rare migratory bird, else the question in confusing.

Threaten is not killing- your assumption may or may not be the author's assumption.

I marked it wrong by assuming that the RWB are itself a rare migratory bird. It is nowhere mentioned, don't know why I assume. Option A is less ambiguous than others (ambiguous because it assumes that RWB will consume all the poisoned rice)

Each year red-winged blackbirds stop in a certain region of Midland Province on their spring and fall migrations. In the fall, they eat a significant portion of the province’s sunflower crop. This year Midland farmers sought permits to set out small amounts of poisoned rice during the blackbirds’ spring stop in order to reduce the fall blackbird population. Some residents voiced concern that the rice could threaten certain species of rare migratory birds. [C]: Nevertheless, the wildlife agency approved the permits.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to justify (STRENGTHEN) the wildlife agency’s approval of the permits, given the concerns voiced by some residents?

(A) In the region where the red-winged blackbirds stop, they are the first birds to be present in the spring.

I crossed this out on first pass and then came back to it as I was able to cross out the other four more confidently.
Looking closely, this would mean that it would be the “red-winged blackbirds” that would eat those poisoned rice and those will not be available to others to cause harm to others.

Also, these blackbirds are not part of the “migratory rare species”, as distinguished by the premises. Always good to keep track of “groupings” in CR and RC and not to get confused around those as GMAC will try to test you on this!

(B) The poison that farmers want to use does not kill birds but rather makes them incapable of producing viable eggs.
This could still poised problems aka reduced population further for certain species of rare migratory birds.

(C) Since rice is not raised in Midland Province, few species of birds native to the province normally eat rice.
Certain species of rare migratory birds could be the “few” that eats it and die! Alas!

(D) Without the permit, any farmers shown to have set out poison for the blackbirds would be heavily fined.

Who cares if they are heavily fined, getting more fine money will not justify the reason to approve this as it can still cause trouble to those migratory bird people are concerned about.

(E) The poison that farmers got approval to use has no taste or smell that would make it detectable by birds.

This is an opposite “TRAP” answer as it would go against the approval reason. This means any bird can be trapped into eating this and die, including those migratory bird people are concerned about.

Understanding the argument - The key here is we are trying to justify two conditions - one, we have to justify the wildlife agency's approval AND take care of some residents' concerns. If we miss this vital part after AND we'll straightaway choose B, and that's the trap.

(A) In the region where the red-winged blackbirds stop, they are the first birds to be present in the spring. - It says they are the first ones to stop, so assuming they like rice and finish all the rice will justify the wildlife agency’s approval. And assuming they finished everything, do not pose any rare risk to migratory birds that come later. Ok. Again, it is best amongst the worst lot of options.

(B) The poison that farmers want to use does not kill birds but rather makes them incapable of producing viable eggs. - One, if it doesn't kill, the fall that is a few months away may or may not reduce the population, and moreover, as we don't know who comes first, the rare birds may eat the poisoned rice first. They become incapable of producing viable eggs, thus threatening the population of already rare migratory birds.

(C) Since rice is not raised in Midland Province, few species of birds native to the province normally eat rice. - Birds native to.. are out of scope.

(D) Without the permit, any farmers shown to have set out poison for the blackbirds would be heavily fined. - out of scope

(E) The poison that farmers got approval to use has no taste or smell that would make it detectable by birds. - Weakener for the wildlife agency's approval. If they don't detect it, they don't eat it.