suminha wrote:
I see every one simply eliminate (D), saying it’s our of scope.
However, isn’t there possibilities that the reason crabs that lives at the waek tidal currents are found not to have significant populations of barnacles because crabs who have significant populations of barnacles are all already dead.
The tidal currunts are very weak so more barnacles can cling to cabs than do normal tidal currents thus they can’t eat so they are dead.
Can someone explain me this please?
Posted from my mobile device
In Paradox question, we need to find an option that explain /connect both sides of paradox.
In 4 options, it would explain only 1 side; the other side wouldn’t be valid
In this question two sides are:
One side: burrowing discourages barnacles from clinging to their shells.
Opposite side: found not to have significant barnacle populations, even though they seldom burrow.
Can D explains reasoning of both sides?
Quote:
(D) A very large barnacle population can significantly decrease the ability of a horseshoe crab to find food.
Ask yourself: ability to find food has any relation with barnacle population sting to its wings ? barnacles clings to its wings ; not crab ask them to cling to its wings or use its ability to make them cling to its wings.
So ability discussion is irrelevant from our point of concern.
What about : A very large barnacle population?
If a large population then more barnacles should stick to its wings. But it doesn’t explain why barnacles don’t stick in weak currents even curbs don’t borrow. So this option only explains one side.It doesn’t explain reasoning of opposite side .
suminha wrote:
The tidal currents are very weak so more barnacles can cling to cabs than do normal tidal currents thus they can’t eat so they are dead.
As per our argument, we stay in the scope what is mentioned
Our scope of argument is : Barnacles cling in scenario. But found not cling even scenario is favorable. This can happen only when some new factor connects these 2 sides. What will happen in future, they are dead etc. will be out of scope for this argument.