Nitinaka19 wrote:
Hi,
Seeing the option B, First of all conclusion says the plan is implemented to halt the population decline of the tortoise by blocking the current access route. So the conclusion talks about current access route only. Anything which weaken or strengthen the conclusion should talks about current access only. Its no where mention about the other entry/access points. It can be a case in other access points tortoise don't face any problem or they face who knows.
Other option seems to be out of scope. But help me out to clear my understanding?
Thanks
Hi Nitin,
What does the plan seek to achieve?
Halt the population decline of tortoise.
Right?
How does it plan to achieve that?
by blocking the current access routes into the desert and announcing new regulations to allow access only on foot
Right?
What if all-terrain vehicles enter the desert from some routes other than current routes? Would the plan be successful then?
No. Agreed?
Now, if the success of the plan depends on the above point, how can you say that "other routes" are OFS.
Remember, anything that impacts the argument is not out of scope. You need to be very careful in marking options as OFS. Just because an option talks about a thing which has not been talked about in the argument does not make that option statement OFS. Only when an option statement has no impact on the argument and is completely irrelevant can you say that the option is irrelevant.
Does it help?
Thanks,
Chiranjeev