Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardEvaluate the Argument

Marine biologist: In a decisive effort to protect the endangered crested sea turtle, the regional government has recently enacted a comprehensive ban on all commercial net fishing within the Emerald Gulf. This legislative action was primarily justified by extensive ecological studies demonstrating that adult crested sea turtles frequently become fatally entangled in these commercial nets during their migratory patterns. Therefore, by eliminating this specific environmental hazard, the new ban will likely cause the overall crested sea turtle population to increase significantly over the course of the next decade.

Statement: Determining whether the commercial net fishing operations in the Emerald Gulf had been significantly depleting populations of predatory fish that feed heavily on crested sea turtle hatchlings is critical to evaluating the validity of the marine biologist's argument.

Answer: Answer

Answer

True
The statement is true because the proposed question perfectly satisfies the Variance Test. Discovering that the fishing nets were acting as a protective barrier for hatchlings by suppressing predator populations would severely weaken the argument's causal prediction. Conversely, discovering they had no such effect would strengthen the prediction.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the marine biologist's argument to identify its core premise and conclusion.
Premise: Commercial nets kill adult turtles, so banning them removes this hazard. Conclusion: The overall turtle population will significantly increase.
Evaluating an argument requires isolating the exact causal mechanism the author relies upon to reach their conclusion.
2
Analyze the factual ambiguity presented in the evaluation statement.
The statement introduces a potential indirect effect: the fishing nets might have been keeping populations of hatchling predators artificially low.
This establishes the new variable that must be tested against the original argument.
3
Apply the Variance Test by answering the question with polar opposites ('Yes' and 'No') to see the impact on the conclusion.
A 'Yes' response introduces a new threat (more predators) that weakens the conclusion. A 'No' response confirms the ban only has positive effects, strengthening the conclusion.
If opposite answers to the question yield opposite effects on the validity of the conclusion, the question is critical for evaluation.

Key Concept

The Variance Test for Argument Evaluation
Rate this question

Topics

Evaluate the Argument

More questions from this topic