In most of this forest, the expected

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct65% picked this

   more than half of the forest is unnaturally crowded with

   Why this is right

   "More than half of the forest" matches up with "most of this forest" from the conclusion. "Unnaturally crowded with immature trees" is the environment in which we're told the tree-eating TM is beneficial. So this helps us support the idea that in most of the forest, we should allow the tree-eating TM to do its thang.

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

   65%
2. B

   Goes Against Gist15% picked this

   mature trees are usually the first to be eaten by

   If they tell us that a tree-eating species of moth is beneficial in an area that is unnaturally crowded with immature trees, then presumably this moth species helps us out by eating the immature trees down to a normal level.

   15%
3. C

   Goes Against Gist15% picked this

   usually a higher proportion of mature trees than of immature ones are destroyed

   If suppression of forest fires results in an unnatural crowding of immature trees, it sounds like non-suppression of forest fires (i.e. allowing forest fires to happen) would result in less crowding of immature trees. So it sounds like forest fires have the usual effect of shrinking the immature tree population. We don't know officially whether it's a higher/lower proportion of immature than mature trees dying in a forest fire. But since the information only stressed the fact that the immature trees are dying in a forest fire, it would be going against the grain to pick an answer saying that mature trees are the ones more affected.

   15%
4. D

   Doesn't Strengthen4% picked this

   the expected outbreak of tussock moths will almost certainly occur if no attempt is made

   We shouldn't counter the outbreak -- why? Because if don't counter it, it's almost certain to happen. Okay ... but why do we want it to happen? There is a hint at why -- maybe we want it to happen because we need to get rid of a lot of unusual crowding of immature trees, but this answer isn't providing any reason why. Think about how unpersuasive this would sound as a strengthener, if you applied to something you had a negative opinion of: We shouldn't counter the expected sinking of this ship, because the ship will almost certainly sink if no attempt is made to avert the sinking. Without knowing whether the outbreak is a good or bad thing, helping its inevitability along might be great, might be awful.

   4%
5. E

   Too Weak1% picked this

   there are no completely effective countermeasures against

   It's not much of a strengthener to say "we shouldn't try to counter the outbreak, because there are no 100% effective countermeasures." Consider how ridiculous that would sound if you were saying, "we shouldn't try to counter COVID-19, because there are no 100% effective countermeasures". Okay, we'll I'll take something that's 90% effective! Our author isn't saying we should avoid trying to stop the moth in most of the forest because our moth-beating options are flawed; it's because the moth can be beneficial in a certain type of context.

   1%