Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Posts: 1734
Given Kudos: 3054
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Re: In most of this forest, the expected outbreak of tree-eating tussock m
[#permalink]
19 Feb 2020, 07:07
In most of this forest, the expected outbreak of tree-eating tussock moths should not be countered. After all, the moth is beneficial where suppression of forest fires, for example, has left the forest unnaturally crowded with immature trees, and _ _ _
P: The moth is beneficial where suppression of forest fires, for example, has left the forest unnaturally crowded with immature trees
P: _____________________________________
C: In most of this forest, the expected outbreak of tree-eating tussock moths should not be countered
Simply looking at the structure, we are missing a premise to support the idea that we should not prevent an outbreak. Reason one being that moths can help where there are too many immature trees. We need a reason two to help bridge the conclusion to this premise; the biggest one being that if most of the forest is covered in immature trees, then most of the forest would benefit from an outbreak of moths.
The conclusion of the argument is most strongly supported if which one of the following completes the passage?
(A) more than half of the forest is unnaturally crowded with immature trees -- Pretty good, though you can hold it and come back if you are concerned about it. If most of the forest is overcrowded, this helps support the idea that most of the area should not be contained. It is perfect for our answer. If you are still concerned, plug it into the above and see if it the support works! For those thinking "but we are never told the moths attack only young trees", this is a fair point. But the premise specifically calls out immature trees overcrowding and that the moths can help, meaning there is a net benefit. Further, for those thinking "But we don't know where in the forest the outbreak will occur". Another fair point, except that we will control, per the conclusion, the outbreak in some parts; we are giving up control in the majority where the overcrowding has happened. Could the conclusion be spelled more clearly to say "in areas where overcrowding has occurred"? Yes. But it is pretty good and you can get to the conclusion without getting lost. At this point, I am just over analyzing.
(B) mature trees are usually the first to be eaten by tussock moths -- This would weaken our argument. If the mature trees are the first to go, then we still have to many immature trees overcrowding each other AND we would have less trees because the mature ones are gone. Out.
(C) usually, a higher proportion of mature trees than of immature ones are destroyed in forest fires -- We don't care about forest fires, though. Keep your focus on the conclusion. We are told that we suppress forest fires, but we are never told that immature overcrowding causes forest fires or helps fires grow bigger; these are assumptions that the writer wants you to believe, but is something we cannot assume. If we knew these assumptions, then this answer choice would help.
(D) the expected outbreak of tussock moths will almost certainly occur if no attempt is made to counter it -- OK, but who cares? We are trying to strengthen the idea that because moth is beneficial to overcrowding, we should therefore not prevent it. This just gives a random fact that it'll happen unless we do something. But this doesn't strengthen anything. If we make this true, all it says is that we have to do less work to make the outbreak happen. But this still leaves open the idea that the outbreak could be bad.
(E) there are no completely effective countermeasures against the moth -- Similar to (D), we do not care. We just want to show a benefit of some kind and this says that we can't prevent it even if we want to. But this would technically be a good thing if we want the outbreak to occur. Either way, this plays no role in our argument.
close
55%
(02:22)
wrong 
