Premise 1: The naked mole rat is a pest to the farmers of Pellaville.
Premise 2: The farmers plan to poison the stream out of which the mole rats drink.
Conclusion: This will reduce the rat population
Which of the following, if true, is the best support for the scheme of the farmers?
--> We need to find an answer that asserts that rat population would indeed be reduced by this approach. Also, this approach would be supported if there are no side effects.
(A) The poison that will be used in the stream is not toxic to the farmers' livestock
--> This supports the scheme planned by farmers, because adding poison to stream would not have any side effects.(B) The naked mole rat is not susceptible to most conventional poisons
--> More than the poison types, the argument is concerned with the way to administer the poison i.e., adding it to stream. This statement does not have any effect on the argument.(C) The befurred vole, a relative to the naked mole rat, is most effectively controlled with contraception rather than with poison
--> The argument does not care about befurred vole. It is possible that befurred vole is harmless, or as a matter of fact useful to farmers.(D) The poison to be used is less expensive than other poisons
--> Even if the poison is expensive than other poisons, the way farmers have planned to administer it i.e., adding poison to stream could be the least expensive approach.(E) The poison will be most effective if administered after the harvest
--> This assumption is not required to support the argument.Answer: A