Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaLogical Arguments and Causal Relationships

An agricultural institute evaluated a pilot program in a semi-arid region where farmers simultaneously introduced cover cropping (planting off-season vegetation) and upgraded to drip irrigation systems. Researchers observed a 30%30\% increase in soil moisture retention on participating farms and hypothesized that the cover cropping was the primary cause of the increased moisture retention.

Match each causal argument role on the left with the observational statement on the right that best fulfills that role.

  • Statement representing the core observed correlation underlying the initial hypothesisSoil moisture retention increased by 30%30\% on farms that implemented both cover cropping and drip irrigation systems.
  • Statement providing an alternative causal explanation for the observed moisture increaseDrip irrigation reduced surface evaporation significantly across all participating farms, including those without cover crops.
  • Statement providing evidence that strengthens the cover cropping causal hypothesisFarms that adopted cover cropping while maintaining traditional sprinkler irrigation also showed a 28%28\% increase in soil moisture retention.

Cevap

The core observed correlation matches the finding that soil moisture increased by 30%30\% on farms implementing both practices. The alternative causal explanation matches the finding that drip irrigation reduced evaporation across all farms regardless of cover crop usage. The statement strengthening the hypothesis matches the finding that farms adopting cover cropping without drip irrigation still experienced a 28%28\% moisture increase.
Matching the core correlation to the dual-implementation finding correctly identifies the baseline observational data. Matching the alternative causal explanation to the drip irrigation finding correctly identifies a confounding variable. Matching the strengthening evidence to the cover-cropping-only finding correctly isolates the hypothesized cause.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the initial observation and causal hypothesis in the argument stem.
The observed effect is a 30%30\% increase in soil moisture on farms that introduced both cover cropping and drip irrigation. The hypothesis claims cover cropping caused this effect.
Establishing the premise and claimed cause helps evaluate how external statements interact with the argument.
2
Evaluate the statement that represents the core observed correlation.
The statement describing the 30%30\% increase on dual-implementation farms directly states the initial empirical correlation.
The initial hypothesis was formed based on this specific dual-implementation data point.
3
Evaluate the statement introducing an alternative causal explanation.
The statement noting that drip irrigation reduced evaporation across all farms regardless of cover crop usage points to drip irrigation as the true cause of the moisture increase.
An alternative cause weakens a causal claim by showing that the outcome could have occurred due to a confounding factor rather than the hypothesized cause.
4
Evaluate the statement that strengthens the causal hypothesis.
The statement showing a 28%28\% increase on farms with cover cropping but without drip irrigation isolates the cover cropping variable.
Showing that the effect occurs when the hypothesized cause is present without the potential confounding factor (drip irrigation) strongly supports the causal link.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Causal Arguments and Alternative Explanations
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Logical Arguments and Causal Relationships

Bu konudan daha fazla soru