PT151 S3 Q6 ExplanationWatanabe: To protect the native kokanee

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Correct82% picked this

   Eliminating a non-native species from a habitat in which it threatens a native species is preferable to any other method of

   Why this is right

   Are the shrimp a non-native species? Yes, they were "originally introduced into the lake as food for adult kokanee". Are the shrimp threatening a native species? Yes, they're threatening the native kokanee, by gobbling up plankton and thus starving young kokanee to death. Well, then, according to this rule, Eliminating [the shrimp] is preferable to any other method [such as trout fishing] If we were thinking, "Wow, is that too strong?", we would want to remind ourselves that there is no such thing as TOO STRONG, if a question stem begins this way: if valid, Which of the following, if true, if assumed, So there is no such thing as TOO STRONG (but there is such a thing as TOO WEAK) when we're dealing with Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox, Sufficient Assumption, and Strengthen-Principle.

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

   82%
2. B

   Bad Trigger Match1% picked this

   When trying to protect the food supply of a particular species, it is best to encourage the method that will have the

   In order for us to use this rule to vote in favor of eradicating the shrimp, we would need to know that eradicating the shrimp would have quicker results than would trout fishing. We weren't given any information to judge that comparison, so we don't know how this rule would apply to this decision before us.

   1%
3. C

   Opposite, if anything0% picked this

   The number of species in a given habitat should not be reduced if

   Both plans would reduce the populations of certain species in the lake, either reducing the shrimp or the trout population. But this is talking about the number of species. Was either plan going to literally remove the species from the lake? Yes, the shrimp plan calls for eradication of the shrimp, so that plan would reduce the number of species in the lake by 1. Thus, this rule is telling us to avoid doing the shrimp plan if at all possible.

   0%
4. D

   No Impact3% picked this

   No non-native species should be introduced into a habitat unless all the potential effects of that

   Does either plan (eradicate shrimp / allow trout fishing) involve introducing species into a habitat? No, so this answer is totally irrelevant to the decision before us. This answer sounds more like it's trying to litigate whether it was appropriate to introduce shrimp into the lake back in the day. Whether it was or wasn't wouldn't clearly tell us what we should currently prefer as a plan to save the kokanee.

   3%
5. E

   Opposite14% picked this

   When seeking to increase the population of a given species, it is most important that one preserve the members of the species who are

   We are seeking to increase the population of the kokanee. The "eradicate shrimp" plan is hoping to preserve the young kokanees' food in order to protect them. The "allow trout fishing" plan is hoping to preserve the mature (adult) kokanees by reducing the number of kokanee-killing trout. Which kokanee is in the prime reproductive stage of its life? Young or Mature If the answer is "hey, how should we know", then this answer is wrong because it's unclear how we would apply it. But to me the common sense answer is Mature kokanee are adults, so they are in prime reproductive stage. The young kokanee are like babies / kids. In human life, sometimes we say "mature" as a polite euphemism for "old" (like, 'Wow! Kevin's new girlfriend is ... mature.') But it's more commonly understood to mean, "this person has passed through puberty and reached physical maturity". TV shows and video games have "rated M for mature", which is meant to mean like 18 and up. So this rule is telling us we should be trying to preserve the mature/adult kokanee, which means it would dictate that we go with the trout fishing plan.

   14%