Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardIdentifying Unstated Assumptions

To combat declining wild bee populations, environmental officials in Region X plan to restrict the agricultural use of neonicotinoid pesticides, citing a study showing that bee colonies in uncultivated nature reserves suffer far lower mortality rates than those near commercial farmland. The officials conclude that enforcing this restriction across all farms in Region X will restore local wild bee populations to healthy levels.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the environmental officials' argument depends?

  1. The lower mortality rate of bee colonies in nature reserves is not primarily attributable to environmental differences other than the absence of neonicotinoid pesticides.Answer
  2. B
    Commercial farmers in Region X will be able to maintain current crop yields without increasing the market prices of their produce.
  3. C
    Restricting neonicotinoid pesticides in Region X will also lead to a noticeable reduction in mortality rates among other pollinating insects.
  4. D
    Wild bee colonies located in nature reserves in Region X produce significantly higher quantities of honey than those near commercial farmland.
  5. E
    Enforcing pesticide restrictions on commercial farmland is more difficult than monitoring environmental compliance within nature reserves.

Answer

The argument assumes that the lower mortality rate of bee colonies in nature reserves is not primarily attributable to environmental differences other than the absence of neonicotinoid pesticides.
The conclusion relies on a causal link between neonicotinoid exposure and high bee mortality. For the proposed restriction to restore bee populations, the observed survival advantage in nature reserves must actually stem from the absence of neonicotinoids rather than other confounding factors (such as superior forage or fewer parasites). Negating this choice reveals that if other factors are the primary cause, the plan will fail, proving it is a necessary unstated assumption.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the argument structure
Premise: Bee colonies in nature reserves (where neonicotinoids are absent) have lower mortality than those near commercial farmland. Conclusion: Restricting neonicotinoids on farmland will restore wild bee populations.
Identifying the gap between the observed correlation (reserves vs. farmland) and the proposed causal intervention (restricting neonicotinoids) is essential.
2
Identify the logical gap
The author assumes that the absence of neonicotinoids is the primary cause of lower bee mortality in reserves, ruling out alternative confounding variables.
If other differences between reserves and farmland cause the mortality gap, removing neonicotinoids will fail to achieve the intended result.
3
Apply the Negation Test to verify the correct assumption
Negated claim: 'The lower mortality rate in nature reserves IS primarily attributable to environmental differences other than the absence of neonicotinoids.' If true, restricting neonicotinoids will not restore bee populations, completely invalidating the conclusion.
A statement is a required assumption if and only if its logical negation shatters the conclusion of the argument.

Key Concept

Identifying Unstated Assumptions via the Negation Test
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Unstated Assumptions

More questions from this topic