Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumDetermining Statement Roles

Marine biologist: Many local officials advocate for sinking decommissioned ships to create artificial reefs, claiming this invariably enhances marine biodiversity. But this enthusiasm is misplaced. The deteriorating metal from these ships inevitably alters the surrounding water's pH balance. Consequently, such artificial reefs frequently drive away native species that are highly sensitive to acidity changes. Therefore, it is essential that environmental regulators require comprehensive ecological reviews prior to approving any new artificial reef projects.

The claim that such artificial reefs frequently drive away native species that are highly sensitive to acidity changes plays which one of the following roles in the marine biologist's argument?

  1. It is a subsidiary conclusion that is supported by the claim regarding the alteration of the water's pH balance, and that in turn supports the main conclusion.Answer
  2. B
    It is the main conclusion of the argument, which is directly supported by the claim regarding the alteration of the water's pH balance.
  3. C
    It is a basic premise used to justify the claim that the deteriorating metal alters the surrounding water's pH balance.
  4. D
    It is a view attributed to local officials that the marine biologist seeks to refute.
  5. E
    It is background information provided to explain why local officials advocate for the creation of artificial reefs.

Answer

The statement acts as a subsidiary (or intermediate) conclusion. It is a claim derived from a basic premise (the changing pH balance) and is subsequently used to support the argument's main conclusion (the need for ecological reviews).
The targeted statement is logically positioned in the middle of the argument's chain of reasoning. The premise 'deteriorating metal alters... pH balance' leads to ('Consequently') the targeted statement 'artificial reefs frequently drive away native species'. The targeted statement then leads to ('Therefore') the main conclusion that 'environmental regulators require comprehensive ecological reviews'. A claim that both receives support from a premise and provides support to a further conclusion is a subsidiary conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is indicated by the indicator word 'Therefore': environmental regulators must require comprehensive ecological reviews prior to approving any new artificial reef projects.
Locating the main conclusion is the necessary first step to understanding the structural role of any other statement in the stimulus.
2
Analyze the targeted statement's relationship to the main conclusion.
The targeted statement (that artificial reefs drive away sensitive native species) provides the logical reason WHY regulators must require ecological reviews. Thus, it acts as a premise supporting the main conclusion.
Determining the direction of logical support clarifies whether the statement is a conclusion, a premise, or mere context.
3
Determine if the targeted statement is itself supported by other premises.
The statement is introduced by 'Consequently' and immediately follows the claim that deteriorating metal alters the water's pH balance. This preceding claim logically supports the targeted statement.
A statement that is supported by a premise, but also actively supports the main conclusion, is classified structurally as a subsidiary or intermediate conclusion.

Key Concept

Determining Statement Roles
Rate this question

Topics

Determining Statement Roles

More questions from this topic