Farmer in Norway: Two decades ago, it became clear that the greylag go

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Overview:

In question, the student reads a statement made by a farmer in Norway regarding the rapid growth of the greylag goose population. At some point in the past, the greylag goose became an endangered species, and the Norwegian government stepped in to protect the geese. In consequence, the geese population grew so quickly that they became deleterious to farms by eating crops, but the farmers are unable to get rid of the geese due to the official protection under which the greylag goose falls. The farmer concludes that the government protection of the geese should be lifted and that the farmers should be allowed to remove the geese from their property in order to protect their crops.

The question asks the student to identify the flaw in the farmer’s reasoning, and the student should recognize that the farmer’s reasoning is guilty of an “all-or-nothing” conclusion: his solution to the problem of excess geese is to remove the endangered species protection for the geese. What the farmer fails to do, however, is also to consider that this could make the geese vulnerable to endangerment all over again. The farmer does not address this side of the concern and does not offer or suggest a compromise in this issue. As a result, his solution is not much of a solution at all, because it could create the same cycle of problems in the future.

This is a rather simple question, so the student should not worry about analyzing it too closely. The flaw in the farmer’s reasoning should be easy to spot, and the answer choice that best reflects it is indeed the correct answer. This will not always be the case in the test, but it will sometimes be the case, so the student should watch for these kinds of questions.

The Correct Answer:

C Answer choice (C) best explains the flaw in the farmer’s reasoning, as indicated in the Overview above: the farmer takes an “all-or-nothing” approach to the issue and assumes that the only way for farmers to protect their crops—since the greylag goose population has increased so much—is for the government to stop protecting the geese. The farmer makes no concession to the other side of the issue (that of the need for safeguarding the geese against population diminishment), and as a result his solution does little more than set the stage for repetition of the same problem scenario. Answer choice (C) is correct.

The Incorrect Answers:

A Answer choice (A) indicates a part of the problem with the farmer’s reasoning: he does fail to offer an alternative solution to the problems that farmers are facing with the greylag geese, in the sense that his only suggestion is removing the restrictions. But the weakness in his reasoning is fairly specific, and answer choice (A) does not clearly explain the real problem with it. Answer choice (A) may be eliminated due to its unclear explanation.

B The farmer mentions no specific data, so it cannot be said that he relies on questionable data. Answer choice (B) is incorrect.

D While it is true that the farmer does not compare the situation with the greylag goose in Norway to similar situations in which an endangered species has grown its population and become a problem, there is nothing in his comments to suggest that he needs such information to complete his argument. Instead, the problem with his reasoning lies in too blunt of an approach and not in missing data.

E It is not surprising that the farmer sides with the other farmers. But the fault in his reasoning lies not in the side that he has taken but in his refusal to see the other side of the issue. It could be said that he fails to demonstrate objectivity, but objectivity is a difficult quality to embrace, and the farmer who is struggling with the inundation of geese of his farm can hardly be expected to demonstrate full objectivity. In reality, the real problem with his reasoning is that he has proffered a solution that ultimately helps no one except in the immediate short term. If the official protection status is lifted, the farmers would be able to remove geese for a time, but it is likely that the goose population would decline all over again—ultimately leading to the same cycle of problems that the farmer is experiencing now and that other farmers would experience in the future. Answer choice (E) is too generic, so it cannot be correct.