To protect vulnerable alpine wildflowers from being trampled by foot traffic, park authorities plan to replace the ground-level soil path through a popular mountain meadow with an elevated wooden boardwalk. They reason that elevating the walking surface will prevent hikers from stepping on the surrounding vegetation, thereby allowing damaged plant populations to recover.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
- The broad wooden planks of the elevated boardwalk cast dense shade and redirect rainwater, suppressing the growth of delicate alpine plant species directly adjacent to the pathway.Cevap
- BPreliminary trials in a neighboring park demonstrated that elevated boardwalks successfully reduced soil erosion by over eighty percent.
- CA majority of park visitors surveyed indicated a strong preference for guided nature tours rather than unguided trail walks.
- DOther mountain meadows in distant alpine regions have experienced plant recovery following severe droughts without any trail modifications.
- EThe high costs associated with transporting wooden planks to high altitudes will require the park authority to reallocate funds from seasonal ranger payrolls.
Cevap
The argument is most weakened by the finding that the broad wooden planks of the elevated boardwalk cast dense shade and redirect rainwater, suppressing the growth of delicate alpine plant species directly adjacent to the pathway.
The correct answer identifies an unforeseen side effect of the proposed plan. If the boardwalk blocks sunlight and redirects rainwater away from the adjacent soil, the plants will suffer from lack of vital nutrients regardless of whether foot traffic is removed. This directly undermines the argument's conclusion that the boardwalk will allow plant populations to recover.
Adım Adım Çözüm
Anahtar Kavram
Weakening a Plan-to-Goal Argument via Unintended Side Effects