Question

Difficulty: HardStrengthen

Paleoecologists analyzing sediment cores from Lake Kerinci observed an abrupt collapse in endemic broadleaf canopy pollen approximately 4,200 years ago, coinciding precisely with a massive spike in micro-charcoal deposits. Because micro-charcoal is a definitive indicator of intense forest fires, the researchers concluded that widespread wildfires triggered by regional drought were the direct cause of the broadleaf canopy collapse.

Statement: Fossilized pollen records from nearby, hydrologically isolated basins that experienced the same regional drought but lacked charcoal deposits show that broadleaf canopy tree populations remained stable during that period; this finding strengthens the researchers' conclusion.

Answer: Answer

Answer

True. The supplementary finding strengthens the argument by establishing a control condition that isolates wildfire as the necessary causal agent of the tree population collapse.
The conclusion asserts a specific causal attribution: wildfires caused the collapse of broadleaf trees. A central weakness in such arguments is the presence of confounding variables (e.g., the drought itself could have dehydrated and killed the trees directly, with fires acting merely as an incidental byproduct). The supplementary finding introduces a classic negative control: where the drought was present but fire was absent, the trees survived. Demonstrating that the effect disappears when the proposed cause is removed strongly substantiates the causal link.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the stimulus argument into premises, conclusion, and unstated causal assumptions.
Premises: 4,200 years ago, broadleaf pollen sharply declined while micro-charcoal (wildfire indicator) spiked. Conclusion: Wildfires triggered by drought directly caused the broadleaf collapse. Unstated Gap: Assumes the drought itself, or another drought-related factor, did not directly kill the trees independently of the fire.
Identifying the causal gap reveals what evidence is required to bolster the link between wildfire and canopy collapse.
2
Evaluate the logical effect of introducing the supplementary evidence.
The evidence shows that in areas where drought occurred without wildfires, broadleaf canopy trees did not collapse.
This comparative control demonstrates that the effect (collapse) does not occur in the absence of the hypothesized cause (wildfire), ruling out the rival hypothesis that drought alone caused the extinction.
3
Determine the truth value of the evaluation statement.
Because ruling out a major alternative explanation and establishing a control group strengthens a causal conclusion, the statement asserting that the finding strengthens the conclusion is True.
Affirms the correct evaluation of the logical support provided.

Key Concept

Strengthening Causal Claims through Control Comparison and Ruling Out Alternative Causes
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question