Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: ZorRole in Argument

Ecologist: Many botanists assume that the volatile chemical compounds emitted by acacia trees upon being grazed by herbivores serve strictly as distress signals to warn neighboring trees. However, these airborne compounds diffuse rapidly and unpredictably over distances beyond two meters. Thus, neighboring trees rarely receive high enough concentrations to trigger preventive defense responses. The emissions cannot have evolved primarily as communicative alarms for conspecifics; rather, their primary evolutionary function must be the direct localized repulsion of the feeding herbivores themselves.

Which of the following best describes the role played in the ecologist's argument by the statement that neighboring trees rarely receive high enough concentrations to trigger preventive defense responses?

  1. A
    It is the overall conclusion that the entire argument is structured to establish.
  2. B
    It is an unargued factual premise offered to directly refute the claim that the compounds repel herbivores.
  3. It is a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence regarding compound dispersion and used to support the argument's final conclusion.Cevap
  4. D
    It is a concession made to acknowledge the plausibility of the position held by many botanists.
  5. E
    It is an illustrative example meant to demonstrate why airborne chemical signaling is generally advantageous to plant populations.

Cevap

The statement functions as a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence regarding compound dispersion and used to support the argument's final conclusion.
The ecologist establishes that volatile compounds diffuse rapidly beyond two meters, and from this premise derives the claim that neighboring trees rarely receive high enough concentrations to trigger defense responses (introduced by 'Thus'). This derived claim is then utilized as evidence to reject the alarm hypothesis and support the ultimate conclusion that the compounds function primarily to repel herbivores directly. Therefore, the statement operates as an intermediate or subsidiary conclusion.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the structural breakdown of the stimulus
Identified opposing view (emissions serve as warnings), premise (compounds diffuse rapidly beyond two meters), targeted statement (neighboring trees rarely receive sufficient concentrations), intermediate deduction (emissions did not evolve as alarms), and main conclusion (primary function is localized herbivore repulsion).
Deconstructing the argument into premises, sub-conclusions, and the ultimate conclusion is essential to determining the functional relationship between components.
2
Evaluate the structural relationship of the targeted statement to preceding and succeeding claims
The targeted statement is derived from the observation of rapid compound diffusion ('Thus...') and acts as a premise supporting the rejection of the communicative alarm hypothesis, which in turn leads to the main conclusion.
A claim that receives inferential support while simultaneously lending support to subsequent claims functions as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
3
Match the identified structural function to the abstract descriptions in the options
The choice describing the statement as a subsidiary conclusion supported by evidence regarding compound dispersion and used to support the final conclusion accurately captures this two-way logical role.
Role in argument questions require abstracting concrete assertions into their precise logical roles.

Anahtar Kavram

Identifying Intermediate (Subsidiary) Conclusions
Tahmini Süre:1m 30s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Role in Argument

Bu konudan daha fazla soru