jet1445 wrote:
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.
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?
(A) In the region where the red-winged blackbirds stop, they are the first birds to be present in the spring.
(B) The poison that farmers want to use does not kill birds but rather makes them incapable of producing viable eggs.
(C) Since rice is not raised in Midland Province, few species of birds native to the province normally eat rice.
(D) Without the permit, any farmers shown to have set out poison for the blackbirds would be heavily fined.
(E) The poison that farmers got approval to use has no taste or smell that would make it detectable by birds.
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.
Quote:
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 riceThe 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.
Quote:
(B) The poison that farmers want to use does not kill birds but rather makes them incapable of producing viable eggs.
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.
Quote:
(C) Since rice is not raised in Midland Province, few species of birds native to the province normally eat rice.
Option C is a gift. Toss it. Not relevant. If not relevant, not a justification. Both blackbirds and the rare birds are migratory.
Quote:
(D) Without the permit, any farmers shown to have set out poison for the blackbirds would be heavily fined.
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.
Quote:
(E) The poison that farmers got approval to use has no taste or smell that would make it detectable by birds.
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 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.