Hi Ronlunarpower wrote:i can definitely see substantial justification for both choice (b) and choice (e).
* as for choice (b), if the livestock animals don't eat the spear thistle, then there's a greater chance that the farmers will actually be able to see it on their farms (so that they can positively identify it with the pictures in the government brochure).
* as for choice (e), if timothy grass is plentiful on the farms, then it should be easier for the farmers to detect the spread of spear thistle, because timothy grass is the primary casualty of spear thistle's parasitism.
since this isn't an official problem, i don't think it's terribly worth worrying about -- you've basically got a choice between two correct answers here. on the official problems, you would not have to deal with such a thing.
Thanks for intervening .As you have stated in the next post in this thread how outside assumptions can be brought in to strengthen/weaken a conclusion.
Then C can also be a feasible strengthener . If spear grass can cause holes in timothy grass , would nt farmers find it easy to identify the outgrowth of spear grass.Basicall the same reasoning that is involved in C can be applied here.