Q3 - Fire ants from Brazil now infest

[sarahmorganbyrd]

I cannot for the life of me figure out this question. I had it narrowed down between C and E, and apparently the answer is D!

Can anybody shed some light on this for me? I don't know if I need to post the stimulus and answer choices on here for you to do that.

Thank you!

[tommywallach]

Hey Sarah,

Sure. So let's start by looking at the core of the argument.

Conclusion: Brazilian fire-ant predators would be of benefit to the environment by stopping the increase of fire-ants in the U.S.

Premise: We've got Brazilian fire-ants. They're different (Two queens). In Brazil, predators limit them.

We want an answer that is NOT an assumption made by the argument in coming to its conclusion.

(A) The argument does assume this. We don't know that the predators would benefit the environment. They might do something else horrible.

(B) The argument does assume this. The predators live in Brazil. that doesn't mean they could live here.

(C) The argument does assume this. The predators succeed in limiting fire-ants in Brazil, but we know American fire-ants are "more aggressive."

(D) CORRECT. The argument does not assume this specific thing. It could be that the predators will stop fire-ants AFTER the ants spread to states that are farther north. That would still count as stopping the increase/being of an overall benefit.

(E) This is similar to (C). These fire-ants are different, so it could be that they reproduce much more quickly in America, so even if the predators were every bit as good in the U.S. as they were in Brazil, that still might not be enough to stop the U.S. version of fire-ants.

Hope that helps!

-t

[sarahmorganbyrd]

Hey Sarah,

Sure. So let's start by looking at the core of the argument.

Conclusion: Brazilian fire-ant predators would be of benefit to the environment by stopping the increase of fire-ants in the U.S.

Premise: We've got Brazilian fire-ants. They're different (Two queens). In Brazil, predators limit them.

We want an answer that is NOT an assumption made by the argument in coming to its conclusion.

(A) The argument does assume this. We don't know that the predators would benefit the environment. They might do something else horrible.

(B) The argument does assume this. The predators live in Brazil. that doesn't mean they could live here.

(C) The argument does assume this. The predators succeed in limiting fire-ants in Brazil, but we know American fire-ants are "more aggressive."

(D) CORRECT. The argument does not assume this specific thing. It could be that the predators will stop fire-ants AFTER the ants spread to states that are farther north. That would still count as stopping the increase/being of an overall benefit.

(E) This is similar to (C). These fire-ants are different, so it could be that they reproduce much more quickly in America, so even if the predators were every bit as good in the U.S. as they were in Brazil, that still might not be enough to stop the U.S. version of fire-ants.

Hope that helps!

-t

Thank you so much! Turns out I was looking at the question in a strange way, so I was coming at it completely incorrectly.