Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaRole in Argument

Biologist: Some public health officials advocate eradicating invasive kudzu patches in suburban greenbelts, claiming that eliminating the dense foliage will destroy the preferred habitat of blacklegged ticks. However, kudzu thickets isolate dense populations of white-footed mice, which serve as the primary host for the pathogen ticks transmit. Eliminating these patches forces the mice to scatter into surrounding residential yards, which will inevitably increase the likelihood of humans contracting tick-borne infections. Therefore, municipal authorities should not pursue broad kudzu eradication in suburban areas.

Which of the following best describes the role played in the biologist's argument by the claim that eliminating kudzu patches will inevitably increase the likelihood of humans contracting tick-borne infections?

  1. A
    It is the primary conclusion that the entire argument is structured to establish.
  2. B
    It is a factual premise cited to support the claim that white-footed mice are the primary reservoir host for the pathogen.
  3. It is an intermediate conclusion drawn to provide support for the argument's overall recommendation.Cevap
  4. D
    It is a concession introduced to acknowledge a potential drawback of the author's proposed policy.
  5. E
    It is an unargued empirical premise presented as background context concerning the life cycle of blacklegged ticks.

Cevap

The statement functions as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion that is supported by earlier evidence and in turn supports the main conclusion.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the cited claim is an intermediate conclusion. It is logically derived from the observation that kudzu removal scatters infected reservoir hosts into residential yards, and it functions as the pivotal support for the author's final conclusion that municipal authorities should refrain from clearing kudzu in suburban zones.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Isolate the argument's components into premises, intermediate claims, opposing views, and main conclusion.
Opposing view: Eradicate kudzu to eliminate tick habitat. Premises: Kudzu contains host mice; removing kudzu disperses mice into yards. Target claim: Eradication will increase human disease exposure. Main conclusion: Authorities should not pursue kudzu eradication.
Understanding the structural flow of the reasoning is necessary to evaluate the exact function of the cited sentence.
2
Determine the relationship between the target claim and adjacent statements.
The target claim is supported by the causal premise that displaced mice will invade residential yards, and it provides direct justification for the final recommendation introduced by 'Therefore'.
A statement that both receives support and gives support functions as an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.
3
Select the option that matches this structural function.
The option stating that the claim is an intermediate conclusion offered in support of the argument's overall recommendation correctly captures this role.
It accurately characterizes both the derived nature of the statement and its downstream role.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing intermediate (subsidiary) conclusions from main conclusions and basic premises in multi-step arguments.
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Role in Argument

Bu konudan daha fazla soru