Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorEvaluating Argument Validity and Test of Variance

A regional agricultural board plans to encourage commercial fruit orchard operators to replace conventional synthetic pesticide sprays with a newly developed biological control agent consisting of predatory mites. Because extensive field trials demonstrated that these predatory mites effectively eliminate target pest insects without producing any chemical runoff into adjacent waterways, board officials claim that widespread adoption of the mites will result in a significant net reduction of toxic chemical contamination in the region's river ecosystem. Which of the following would be most useful to investigate in order to evaluate the validity of the agricultural board's claim?

  1. Whether fruit orchard operators who adopt the predatory mites will need to apply secondary chemical fungicides to protect the mite population from naturally occurring fungal pathogens.Cevap
  2. B
    Whether neighboring agricultural regions cultivating non-fruit crops plan to introduce biological pest controls within the next five years.
  3. C
    Whether the purchase price of the predatory mite agent per acre is higher than the historical retail cost of conventional synthetic pesticides.
  4. D
    Whether conventional synthetic pesticide sprays currently contribute to atmospheric emissions in addition to water contamination.
  5. E
    Whether the pest insects targeted by the predatory mites can also feed on wild flora growing along the riverbanks.

Cevap

Determining whether orchard operators who adopt the predatory mites must apply secondary chemical fungicides to safeguard the mites from fungal pathogens is most useful to evaluate the argument.
The correct answer provides the key information required to assess whether replacing conventional pesticides with predatory mites truly achieves a net reduction in water contamination. Under the Test of Variance, if orchard operators must spray secondary chemical fungicides to protect the mites, those fungicides could introduce new toxic runoff into the river ecosystem, thereby undermining the conclusion. Conversely, if no secondary chemical applications are required, the adoption of predatory mites will successfully reduce overall chemical runoff into the river.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Deconstruct the argument structure into premise and conclusion.
Premise: Predatory mites eliminate pest insects without generating chemical runoff. Conclusion: Replacing synthetic pesticides with predatory mites will yield a net reduction in toxic chemical contamination in the river ecosystem.
Identifying the author's logical leap reveals unstated assumptions regarding potential secondary chemical usage.
2
Identify the unstated assumption in the causal plan.
The argument assumes that adopting predatory mites will not necessitate any new chemical interventions that could introduce toxic runoff into the river.
If alternative chemical treatments are triggered by adopting the biological agent, total chemical runoff might not decrease.
3
Apply the Test of Variance to evaluate potential answers.
Testing extreme answers to the option regarding secondary chemical fungicides: If YES (fungicides are required), chemical runoff may remain high or increase (weakens conclusion). If NO (no fungicides required), chemical runoff will decrease as predicted (strengthens conclusion).
An option whose two opposite extreme responses yield opposite impacts on the conclusion is the decisive factor required to evaluate argument validity.

Anahtar Kavram

Test of Variance for Argument Evaluation
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Evaluating Argument Validity and Test of Variance

Bu konudan daha fazla soru