protect sea turtles

This topic has expert replies
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:14 am

protect sea turtles

by cathy0929 » Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:17 am
A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching. Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago. Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

A.The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.
B.Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.
C.Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.
D.Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.
E.After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.

answer is B
i choose E
my reason is that if the environmental group rejected a proposal to send the turtle to a nearby safe beaches, then the turtles have no place to go , they have no choice to go back to that polluted ocean beach.

:?:
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:10 am
my reason is that if the environmental group rejected a proposal to send the turtle to a nearby safe beaches, then the turtles have no place to go , they have no choice to go back to that polluted ocean beach.
If this is the thing happening.. then u are supporting the conclusion that major chemical spill is not affecting the turtles and even the environmentalists agree that they were wrong earlier by stating that chemical spill affected turtles.And now they have no problem if the turtles are sent to Baker’s Beach.

B,though extremly unattractive and not convincing enough..can be supported by only one reasoning..

If the female turtles come back at the same site to lay eggs after 10 years., they are but ofcourse not aware of what has happened 5 years back,neither they can make out what caused the eggs from hatching.Thus they returned to the site in large number unaware of the conditions of the beaches..

Thus they are returning in large number not because they are not affected by chemicals but because they are unaware of the condition of the beach.This weakens the conclusion by stating that Environmentalist are correct in their prediction that chemical spill will result in decrease of population.

But let me tell u, its very difficullt to identify (at least for me) such subtleties with time constraints..


A Request:pls hide ur OA with spoiler

thanks.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:14 am

by cathy0929 » Mon Aug 11, 2008 7:23 am
raunekk:

let me clear the things up:

the conclusion here is : because of the increasing number of adult female turtles returning to lay their eggs at this polluted beach, then environmentalists clearly predicted that the world’s Merrick population would decline.

the refutation to this arguement: the turtle's population will not decline

now the question is for weakening the refutation, in other words, it is for supporting the environments' point -- the population will deline.

if B, the coming back turtles when they are 10 years old do not care about the ocean's condition, that is support of the refutation, not undermine.

I'm still confused.

:?:

Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:05 am
hi cathy,

i totally agree,its not our fault.. :) the stimulus is confusing..

the conclusion here is : because of the increasing number of adult female turtles returning to lay their eggs at this polluted beach, then environmentalists clearly predicted that the world’s Merrick population would decline.
Conclusion:
Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Thus conclusion is: environmentalists’ prediction is wrong

We have to weaken this: environmentalists’ prediction is right.

Thus they are returning in large number not because they are not affected by chemicals but because they are unaware of the condition of the beach.This weakens the conclusion by stating that Environmentalist are correct in their prediction that chemical spill will result in decrease of population.
All i meant by " A request" was to hide the Original answer that you post at the end of the question.
So that we can also try the question without knowing the OA beforehand.:)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 7:58 am

by peter.p.81 » Wed May 11, 2016 1:42 am
I'm going with B, No confidence on my answer. Can anyone tell OA?