Poorvasha wrote:
Gnpth wrote:
Hightrail Park, a state park popular amongst weekend hikers, is suffering erosion along its trails. The primary cause are the many hikers, who looking for a quicker route between the switchbacks, cut between trails, thereby trampling undergrowth. Without grass and weeds, the land abutting the trails is more prone to erosion. To combat this problem, state park officials have placed yellow tape on those parts of the trail where erosion is most significant. State park officials expect that the park will not witness any erosion more extreme than what the park is currently witnessing.
The argument above depends on which of the following assumptions?
A. Hikers who hike between trails tend to hike along a similar route, thereby making erosion more likely in certain areas along the trail.
B. Hikers who hike during the week are not as likely to walk on the land between the switchbacks.
C. Erosion in the state park can be caused by other factors such as significant rainfall.
D. The yellow tape at higher altitudes along the trail, where weather is more severe, will fall apart at the same rate as the yellow tape located at lower altitudes.
E. Those parts along the trail that do not qualify as being highly eroded will not in the next five years become more eroded than those parts along the trail that are currently the most eroded.
Hi
mikemcgarry,
Can you please explain why A is incorrect here.
Also, would A have been correct if it would have said that Hikers who hiked along a similar route might now take alternative routes that are not covered with yellow tape between trails ?
Thanks in advance!
Dear
Poorvasha,
I'm happy to respond.
Remember, one standard check for an assumption is the
Negation Test: if we can negate the statement and the argument more or less still works, then that statement is not an assumption; conversely, if negating a statement devastates an argument, that statement is an assumption.
Let's suppose that (A) is false. Let's say that
Hikers who hike between trails tend to hike along different routes, spreading out their impact.
That's the negation of (A). Would this lead to more erosion or less? Hard to say. I could see an argument either way, and when the argument could go either way, what we have is inconclusive. Because this is inconclusive, we can't call (A) an assumption.
Adding in the part about places with or without yellow tape doesn't change this. We don't know whether these changes would result more or less erosion, and because it's unclear, we don't have a bonafide assumption.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test PrepEducation is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)