Data from satellite photographs

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact1% picked this

   Landowner opposition to the government’s antideforestation efforts grew more violent last year in response to

   The violent opposition from landowners, while a consequence of increased enforcement, doesn't directly undermine the claim that enforcement was effective in reducing deforestation.

   1%
2. B

   Correct69% picked this

   Rainfall during the usually dry 6-month annual burning season was abnormally

   Why this is right

   If the rainfall during the usual burning season was abnormally heavy, it could serve as an alternate explanation for the reduced deforestation rate. This means that the lower rate could be due to the natural factor of increased rain, which deterred burning, rather than the government's efforts.

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

   69%
3. C

   Opposite (if anything)2% picked this

   Government agents had to issue fines totaling over $9 million to 3,500 violators

   If anything, this seems to boost the plausibility of the idea that the government's efforts are making a difference.

   2%
4. D

   Weaker Impact22% picked this

   The inaccessibility of much of the rain forest has made it impossible to confirm the satellite data by

   This makes the government's evidence a little less robust / trustworthy, but we have no reason to be inherently distrustful of comparing satellite images of the rainforest today to those of the rainforest in the past. Corroborating the satellite data would strengthen the author's case, but a failure to corroborate the data doesn't do much to weaken it. The correct answer's alternate explanation for the observed change is a lot more impactful.

   22%
5. E

   Unclear Impact6% picked this

   Much of the money that was designated last year for forest preservation has been spent on research

   If almost none of the government money was spent on enforcement, then it would undermine the plausibility that the government's efforts to stop deforestation are what caused the lower rate of deforestation. But this doesn't say anything that strong, just that "much" (i.e. a significant chunk) of the money went to research. This doesn't give us much reason to think that enforcement was underfunded.

   6%