Q5 - The number of codfish in the North

[adarsh.murthy]

I dont understand how the D is suppose to weaken the arguement? I was thinking about E which sounds like a better fit.

The conclusion is that the increase in seal popullation has led to decrease in Cod popullation, based on the fact that the Seal dont eat cod(thats what I interpret from "negligible role in diet"). SO, if Cod is mostly eating capelin, why should the Seal start eating the Cod? ANd even if that was the case, if the number of Cod was much lesser than the Seal, the Cod's preference for Capelin would not have any significant effect.

E seems like a better weaking statement as it says the reduction of Cod popullation started before increase of Seal popullation...so might be a different cause.

Thanks!

[noah]

It looks like you got turned around by (E) since the argument suggests, as does (E), that there's some other reason for the cod declining. We want to show that the seal population could be a cause.

The conclusion of this argument is that it's unlikely that the increase in seals has led to a decrease in cod. Why? Because seal don't eat that much cod.

What gap do you see? Well, perhaps seal somehow cause problems for cod in some other way - like maybe they enjoy killing the for sport. Or, more reasonably, perhaps seals somehow disturb the environment that cod depend upon. That's what (D) hinges upon. If it turns out that cod eat capelin and so do seals, an increase in seals could mean trouble for cod since there wouldn't be enough food for those poor cod.

(A) is about people who fis for cod being inconvenienced. We have no idea how that inconveniencing affects anything. Out of scope.

(B) might actually strengthen the argument. It provides another reason that cod might be dying out.

(C) might also strengthen the argument. It shows that sel and cod don't live near each other. It's easier to conclude that they don't affect each other in that case.

(E) further disconnects the cod and seal population by showing that the cod decline began before more seal started showing up. We want an answer the connects the two.

I hope that clears it up.

[chike_eze]

This argument structure is deceptive. Unfortunately, If you look at (E) long enough and you forget what the argument is for, you could easily choose it.

The argument is that it is unlikely that increasing seal population caused the shrinking cod population.

What makes this difficult, especially in real-time, is that one could forget or skip the "unlikely" keyword and think of the argument as the opposite of what it actually is. BTW, I think it is quite amazing that the evil LSATers have option (E) ready-- in anticipation of that slip. Wow!

PT 45, S1, Q12 also employs this method in its argument structure. The answer to this one is even more subtle, therefore more difficult.