Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaResolve the Paradox

Over the past three years, the coastal wildlife preserve of Marelton enforced a strict ban on recreational motorboats in its shallow estuaries to protect endangered eelgrass beds from propeller scarring. However, aerial surveys conducted at the end of the three-year period revealed that the total area of damaged eelgrass beds in these estuaries increased significantly compared to the three years preceding the ban.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent discrepancy described above?

  1. A
    Recreational motorboats typically operate at propeller depths that slice through eelgrass foliage without uprooting the underlying root systems.
  2. B
    Neighboring coastal preserves that enacted no motorized watercraft restrictions recorded a minor decline in overall boating activity over the same period.
  3. A species of invasive herbivorous waterfowl that consumes eelgrass roots, previously kept away from the estuaries by engine noise, colonized the shallows once motorboats were prohibited.Cevap
  4. D
    All marine vegetation species native to shallow coastal estuaries require regular turbulence generated by watercraft hulls to disperse their reproductive seeds.
  5. E
    The aerial survey methods employed after the ban were significantly more prone to misclassifying healthy eelgrass beds as damaged than were pre-ban ground inspections.

Cevap

A species of invasive herbivorous waterfowl that consumes eelgrass roots, previously kept away from the estuaries by engine noise, colonized the shallows once motorboats were prohibited.
The correct answer provides an unconsidered causal consequence of removing the motorboats. If engine noise had been inadvertently keeping away invasive waterfowl that destroy eelgrass roots, banning the boats removed that deterrent, leading to an influx of waterfowl whose feeding damaged more eelgrass than the boat propellers had previously damaged. This allows both facts in the stimulus to be entirely true.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the two conflicting facts presented in the stimulus.
Fact 1: Motorboats were banned to protect eelgrass from damage. Fact 2: The total damaged area of eelgrass increased significantly after the ban.
Resolving a paradox requires isolating the tension between the intended protective measure and the contrary outcome.
2
Formulate the missing causal link that allows both facts to be true simultaneously.
Need an explanation showing that the motorboat ban inadvertently introduced or facilitated a new source of eelgrass destruction that exceeded the damage formerly caused by boat propellers.
A valid resolution introduces an active mechanism without denying the accuracy of the baseline facts.
3
Evaluate the choices to find the one that bridges the gap through this mechanism.
The statement showing that engine noise previously deterred destructive invasive waterfowl demonstrates that removing the boats allowed the waterfowl to enter and damage the beds.
This bridges the premises by demonstrating an unintended ecological side effect of the ban.

Anahtar Kavram

Resolving an apparent paradox by identifying an unconsidered compensatory causal factor
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Resolve the Paradox

Bu konudan daha fazla soru