Smith's new grazing land consists

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: other fungus6% picked this

   At least one other species of fungus is contained in the fescue grass that does not contain the

   Why would the author need to believe that there is at least one fungus species in the "other half" of the land? If the other half of the land is fungus free, would that weaken the argument? No, that would strengthen the conclusion that cows will learn to graze exclusively on that half of the land.

   6%
2. B

   Correct85% picked this

   At least some cows that have been made ill by the fungus are capable of sensing the

   Why this is right

   The author is thinking that cows will graze on this fungus, get ill from it, and then sense where this fungus is / isn't. That's how she thinks the cows will ultimately graze exclusively on the grass that doesn't have the fungus. The final claim is a conditional premise: If cows sense a substance then they will that has made them ill ? avoid that patch of grass The author's conclusion is claiming that the cows will avoid that patch of grass with the fungus, so she is apparently assuming that this trigger idea is true (that cows will be able to sense the fungus). We call this sort of Assumption an Untriggered Conditional. What does this argument assume: Dan is going to get drunk tonight, because dan always gets drunk if he goes to a party. It's assuming that Dan is going to a party tonight. Again, there was a conditional ("if goes to party ? gets drunk"). The conclusion related to the outcome (Dan will get drunk tonight). And the assumption is just saying, "Yo, you never established that the trigger idea is happening". When we negate this answer, it says, "none of the cows that have been made ill by the fungus are capable of sensing the fungus". Would that weaken? Absolutely! If they can't sense it, then they don't know how to avoid it, which suggests that the author is wrong to think that the cows will ultimately graze exclusively on the non-fungus part of the land.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   85%
3. C

   Too Strong4% picked this

   The fungus that makes cows ill cannot be found in any variety of grass other

   Too Strong: found in no other Only Thing Mentioned ? Only Thing The author doesn't need to assume that only fescue has this fungus. This is arguable the most common trap answer pattern in Necessary Assumption. They want students to erroneously think, "If the author only mentioned fescue, then I guess this thing only applies to fescue". That's crazy. If we say, "The people who serve in the Army are patriots", are we assuming that "People that serve in other branches of the military aren't patriots"? Of course not.

   4%
4. D

   Too Strong2% picked this

   The cows are the only animals grazing on the new land who become ill after eating the fungus

   Too Strong: only Only Thing Mentioned ? Only Thing This has the same problem as (C). The author doesn't need to assume that only cows get sick from the fungus. If a chicken or a crow also gets sick from the fungus, that doesn't weaken the argument at all. Again, this is playing off the trap thought pattern of, "If the author only mentioned cows getting sick from the fungus, then I guess only cows get sick from the fungus."

   2%
5. E

   Too Strong3% picked this

   The fungus that is contained in the fescue grass cannot be eradicated without destroying

   Too Strong: cannot without destroying Out of Scope: eradicated This argument has nothing to do with eradicating the fungus or what the collateral damage would be were a farmer to attempt such a thing. If we negate this answer, it says, "It's possible to eradicate the fungus without destroying the grass itself". That does not weaken. Even if the farmer chooses to eradicate the fungus, the conclusion would still potentially make sense (the cows would be grazing exclusively on grass that doesn't contain the fungus).

   3%