Throughout the 1950s, there were increases in the numbers of dead bir

I thinkn it should be D. The pesticide manufacturers claim that bc there was so much publicity people started to look for dead birds and thus the number of dead birds reported increased. D states that that agricultural workers noticed an increase in the number of dead birds even before the publicity. That contradicts the statement that the publicity effect and not the actual pesticides caused the number of dead birds reported to go up.

E kind of supports the manufacturer's claim that pesticide used for agriculture is not responsible for bird death but some other factor is responsible for it, that's why dead birds are found not only at agricultural area but also at other areas .

Answer E states that, "Dead birds of the same species as those found in agricultural areas had been found along coastal areas where no farming took place." "No farming took place" indicates that the dead birds were found in areas where no pesticide was used. If dead birds of the same species were found in both places, then it's hard to blame the pesticides as the cause of death for the birds. It strengthens the manufacturer's statements rather then weakening it.

why cant the answer be 'C' . I strongly thought it would be C

Hey Nivigmat,
The conclusion here is that "it's not the pesticide's fault that more dead birds are reported"
The reasoning is that more people are now consciously looking for dead birds.
The implication here is that the bird deaths haven't increased since pesticide use.

We are to weaken this argument.
Look at C and E.

C) No provision was made to ensure that a dead bird would not be reported by more than one observer. To translate this: more people reported about the same bird more than once - exaggerating the number of dead birds: this supports the argument made
(E) Dead birds of the same species as those found in agricultural areas had been found along coastal areas where no farming took place. This suggests that birds outside of the pesticide use area have also died- This ALSO strengthens the argument that "it isn't the pesticide's fault!"


Only D weakens the augment-
(D) Initial increases in bird deaths had been noticed by agricultural workers long before any publicity had been given to the matter.
This breaks the assumption that bird deaths haven't increases and also refutes the reasoning that the deaths were over represented through publicity.

Option D is therefore the apt response.

Hope that clarifies things!

Peo - Academic Manager, CrackVerbal.
_________________

(A) The publicity given to bird deaths was largely regional and never reached national proportions....out of scope

(B) Pesticide sprayings were timed to coincide with various phases of the life cycles of the insects they destroyed...irrelevant

(C) No provision was made to ensure that a dead bird would not be reported by more than one observer....will support the manufaturer's claim

(D) Initial increases in bird deaths had been noticed by agricultural workers long before any publicity had been given to the matter.......perfect choice

(E) Dead birds of the same species as those found in agricultural areas had been found along coastal areas where no farming took place.....out of scope

+1 for D

Throughout the 1950’s, there were increases in the numbers of dead birds found in agricultural areas after pesticide sprayings. Pesticide manufacturers claimed that the publicity given to bird deaths stimulated volunteers to look for dead birds, and that the increase in numbers reported was attributable to the increase in the number of people looking.

Which of the following statements, if true, would help to refute the claim of the pesticide manufacturers?
Boil it down- the publicity given to bird deaths stimulated volunteers to look for dead birds, and that the increase in numbers reported was attributable to the increase in the number of people looking.

(A) The publicity given to bird deaths was largely regional and never reached national proportions. - Irrelevant

(B) Pesticide sprayings were timed to coincide with various phases of the life cycles of the insects they destroyed. - Irrelevant - the timing of Pesticide sprayings to coincide with insects lifecycles has no bearing

(C) No provision was made to ensure that a dead bird would not be reported by more than one observer. - mild strengthener - If this statement is true, then maybe the number of dead birds REPORTED was more than the ACTUAL number of dead birds

(D) Initial increases in bird deaths had been noticed by agricultural workers long before any publicity had been given to the matter. - Correct - weakens - EFFECT occurred before the claimed CAUSE

(E) Dead birds of the same species as those found in agricultural areas had been found along coastal areas where no farming took place. - Irrelevant - this does provide some basis that the pesticide may not be responsible for the increase in birds deaths

Answer D
_________________

but we are not told that agricultural workers reported the noticed dead birds. In case they did not report the increase so it has nothing to do with the argument. I do not agree with D.

you are correct in thinking so. But extend the reasoning a little.

Throughout the 1950’s, there were increases in the numbers of dead birds found in agricultural areas after pesticide sprayings. Pesticide manufacturers claimed that the publicity given to bird deaths stimulated volunteers to look for dead birds, and that the increase in numbers reported was attributable to the increase in the number of people looking.

CONCLUSION : increase in people looking --->> increase in reporting.

Which of the following statements, if true, would help to refute the claim of the pesticide manufacturers?


(A) The publicity given to bird deaths was largely regional and never reached national proportions.

(B) Pesticide sprayings were timed to coincide with various phases of the life cycles of the insects they destroyed.

(C) No provision was made to ensure that a dead bird would not be reported by more than one observer.

(D) Initial increases in bird deaths had been noticed by agricultural workers long before any publicity had been given to the matter.
If they had reported the deaths before publicity, then definitely there was some other factor that led them to do so. But they did not. Thus people noticed deaths and did not report at that time. So increase in people looking did not have any effect on increase in reporting now also. (whether publicity or no publicity). What publicity did was do make people aware of the deaths that they already had been noticing. So no real contribution to get people report.
correct.

(E) Dead birds of the same species as those found in agricultural areas had been found along coastal areas where no farming took place.

thanks, and "c" sounds even opposite.

No provision was made. But do we have a little more certainty that people may have reported the same death? Do we have certainty that the same bird was counted while calculating the the total reporting? It is just informing that no provision was there. It is trap answer.


PLEASE KUDOS IF THIS HELPS! :D

There is a similar question. Clearly, the pattern here is about refuting a claim by weaking the premise. In this question, the premise is weakened by another fact.
Here is structure of the argument.
The first sentence is a fact.
The second question is the claim.

Option (D) is correct. As per this option, the increase in bird deaths was observed by agricultural workers in the very initial stage. This clearly refutes the claim that the increase in numbers reported was attributable to the increase in the number of people looking. The increase was observed earlier than any publicity.

I couldn't understand why Answer is D but not C. No one explained why it's not C. Everyone is just stating why the answer is D.

(D) Initial increases in bird deaths had been noticed by agricultural workers long before any publicity had been given to the matter. - clearly weakning the claim by pesticides manufacturer

OA: D. This option directly weakens the argument made by pesticide manufacturers, that people reported more bird incidents after pubilicity.

To refute the claim of the pesticide manufacturers that the increase in the reported numbers of dead birds was solely due to more people looking for them, we need to find evidence that suggests there was a real increase in bird deaths caused by pesticide sprayings. Let's evaluate each option:

(A) The publicity given to bird deaths was largely regional and never reached national proportions.
- This option doesn't directly address whether there was an actual increase in bird deaths. It only talks about the regional extent of the publicity, which may or may not be related to the increase in reports.

(B) Pesticide sprayings were timed to coincide with various phases of the life cycles of the insects they destroyed.
- This option provides information about the timing of pesticide sprayings but doesn't directly refute the pesticide manufacturers' claim. It doesn't address whether the increase in bird deaths was due to more people looking or a real increase in deaths.

(C) No provision was made to ensure that a dead bird would not be reported by more than one observer.
- This option implies that there could be duplication in the reporting of dead birds, but it doesn't address whether there was a real increase in bird deaths. It focuses on reporting procedures.

(D) Initial increases in bird deaths had been noticed by agricultural workers long before any publicity had been given to the matter.
- This option directly refutes the pesticide manufacturers' claim. If agricultural workers had noticed increases in bird deaths before any publicity, it suggests that the increase was not solely due to more people looking but rather a genuine increase in bird deaths associated with pesticide sprayings.

(E) Dead birds of the same species as those found in agricultural areas had been found along coastal areas where no farming took place.
- This option doesn't directly refute the pesticide manufacturers' claim because it discusses a different location (coastal areas) and doesn't address whether there was a real increase in bird deaths in agricultural areas.

Option (D) provides the most direct refutation of the pesticide manufacturers' claim, as it suggests that agricultural workers had observed increased bird deaths before any publicity about the issue. Therefore, (D) is the best choice to refute the claim.