Two lakes in the Pawpaw mountains

Answer choices

1. A

   Unclear Impact18% picked this

   Highwater Lake is in an area of the mountains that is highly susceptible

   This potentially suggests an alternate explanation for why Quapaw has recovered and Highwater hasn't -- it's not Quapaw's fishing ban that's helping it; it's Highwater's acid rain that's hurting it. The problem is that these two lakes are in the same mountains, so it strains credulity to think that acid rain hits Highwater but not Pawpaw. Generally, lakes in the same mountains would be expected to experience similar precipitation. The fact that this answer also doesn't make any distinction based on ten years ago vs. now makes it less compelling as an alternate explanation. Has Highwater always been susceptible to acid rain? Why was there suddenly a serious decline 10 years ago and why does the fish population continue to decline? This answer definitely weakens somewhat because it raises some suspicion that maybe acid rain is the real explanation for Highwater's low fish count, but it has less impact than the correct answer, which all but refutes the author's proposed explanation.

   18%
2. B

   Correct76% picked this

   Prior to the ban, there was practically no fishing at

   Why this is right

   This makes the Author's Explanation seem thoroughly implausible. This is stronger than (A), because (A) suggests a possible alternate explanation, but (B) basically confirms the author's explanation is probably wrong. because if there was almost no fishing prior to the ban, then how could the ban on fishing possibly be the causal difference-maker that explains why fish are replenishing at Quapaw? In order for something to be a causal difference-maker, there has to be a difference. The author was assuming that, "Now that there is a ban on fishing, there is way less fishing than before, and that's why the fish population is able to replenish." But if there was almost zero fishing at Quapaw before the ban, then there's no way for there to be "way less fishing" after the ban.

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

   76%
3. C

   No Impact1% picked this

   Highwater Lake is much larger than

   This provides a difference, so we can ask ourselves, "Could that difference account for why Quapaw's fish population has been recovering but Highwater's continues to decline?" Is there some common sense link between being a larger lake and not having your fish population recover? No. Maybe a larger lake needs more fish to fill it, but we would probably compare declining population and recovery rates in a relative sense, not an absolute number. (i.e., we would say each lake had lost 30% of its population / we wouldn't count up how many fish). In short, we can't say "the reason that Quapaw is recovering while Highwater is still declining is because Highwater is a larger lake". There's just no common sense bridge from 'larger' to 'not recovering'.

   1%
4. D

   Unclear Impact5% picked this

   Several other lakes in the Pawpaw mountains have recently had increases in

   Without knowing whether those other lakes also had fishing bans or not, it's impossible to judge the impact. If they did, it would strengthen. If they didn't, it would weaken.

   5%
5. E

   No Impact0% picked this

   There used to be a greater variety of fish species in Highwater Lake than in Quapaw Lake, but

   This isn't offering an alternate storyline for why Highwater is still on the decline / why Quapaw is recovering. There's no common sense logic to "Highwater isn't recovering yet because that lake used to have more biodiversity". Since the "fish population" is just being discussed in this argument in an aggregate sense, the biodiversity isn't really a relevant concept.

   0%