reply2spg wrote:
A 20 percent decline in lobster catches in Maine waters since 1980 can be justifiably blamed on legislation passed in 1972 to protect harbor seals. Maine's population of harbor seals is now double the level existing before protection was initated, and these seals are known to eat both fish and lobsters.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument above?
a) Harbor seals usually eat more fish than lobsters, but the seals are natural predators of both
b) Although harbor seals are skillful predators of lobsters, they rarely finish eating their catch
c) Harbor seals attract tourists to Maine's coastal areas, thus revitalizing the local economy
d) Authors of the 1972 legislation protecting harbor seals were convinced that an increase in that animal's numbers would not have measurably negative impact on the lobster catch
e) The record lobster harvests of the late 1970's removed large numbers of mature lobsters from the reporductive stock.
E
Interesting question.!
The reasoning is:
1. the increase in habor seals
2. harbor seals eat fish and lobsters
A, that
the seals are natural predators of lobster STRENTHENs rather than weakens the argument, A out
B, also suggests that harbor seals are natural predator of lobsters. Should not be confused with "finish eating". B strenthens rather than weakens Argument, B out
C. irrelevant
D. Whether or not the authors are convinced... does not affect the legistation passed, assuming that C strenthens argument also. C out
E. correct. E sussests that the lobsters are not, or little, effected by the predators, therefore the legistation passed.
E wins the games