New evidence indicates that

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct54% picked this

   While both surveys found the same species of animals in the park, the more recent survey found greater numbers of

   Why this is right

   It's possible that the property development had adversely affected some of the wildlife, possibly even causing their numbers to shrink or die off. Maybe all the gophers died, but this allowed populations of squirrels and ladybugs and worms to thrive. If you lose 50 gophers but gain 200 squirrels/ladybugs/worm, then you have more wildlife than before, but it's still true that the property development adversely affected wildlife (it killed off all the gophers!) This answer goes against that objection. It says, not only is the amount of wildlife greater, but the biodiversity has been preserved, and no population has declined. There's a Whole vs. Part distinction the original argument is ignoring. Maybe there is more wildlife on the whole, but maybe there are fewer gophers and raccoons and hummingbirds, because the property development adversely affected those populations. With (A), given that the population of every species is higher than before, it's harder to argue that any species was adversely affected.

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

   54%
2. B

   No Impact6% picked this

   The more recent survey was taken in the summer, when the diversity of wildlife in the park

   We don't know when the previous survey was taken (might also have been in the summer), but if there were a mismatch and the new survey was getting an artificially high number of wildlife because of measuring in the summer, then this would Weaken the argument, not strengthen.

   6%
3. C

   No Impact22% picked this

   Migration of wildlife into the park from the adjacent developing areas has increased animal populations to levels beyond those that the resources of the

   If anything, this sounds negative. It's saying our current populations would've strained our old budgets. We already know our current resources can handle the current population, so this really just tells us nothing interesting. But, it almost sounds like a negative, in the sense that it sounds like the property development may have adversely affected wildlife by forcing them to crowd more into the park.

   22%
4. D

   Weakens9% picked this

   The most recent techniques for surveying wildlife are better at locating difficult-to-find animals than

   This points to a potential problem with the data the author is relying on. She's saying, "Everything's chill. Look, there are more animals then when we measured 10 years ago!" This answer is weakening by saying, "There are more animals because we're better at finding them, not because there are more of them there".

   9%
5. E

   Weakens, if Anything9% picked this

   The more recent survey not only involved counting the animals found in the park but, unlike the earlier survey, also provided an inventory of

   I'm not sure if "plant life" gets counted among wildlife, but if it does, then this would Weaken the argument by making the two different wildlife surveys feel like an Apples vs. Oranges comparison. Of course you'd have more wildlife in the recent survey if you're now including plants. That doesn't show that the park's wildlife is thriving, just that you changed your methodology.

   9%