To reduce the mosquito population in a resort area, hundreds of trees were planted that bear fruit attractive to birds. Over the years, as the trees matured, they attracted a variety of bird species and greatly increased the summer bird population in the area. As expected, the birds ate many mosquitoes. However, the planting of the fruit trees had the very opposite of its intended effect.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did planting trees that attracted birds end up increasing the mosquito population, even though the trees did attract birds and the birds did eat many mosquitoes?

Objective
The correct answer should describe an effect of the trees or of the birds attracted to the area that could result in an increase in mosquitoes.

A
Most of the species of birds that were attracted by the trees that were planted did not eat mosquitoes.
The stimulus tells us “the birds at many mosquitoes.” Even if most of the bird species didn’t eat mosquitoes, we still know many mosquitoes were eaten by birds. So, we’d still expect the mosquito population to go down.
B
The species of birds that were attracted in the greatest number by the fruit of the trees that were planted did not eat mosquitoes.
The stimulus tells us “the birds at many mosquitoes.” Even if the species that had the most birds didn’t eat mosquitoes, we still know many mosquitoes were eaten by birds. So, we’d still expect the mosquito population to go down.
C
The birds attracted to the area by the trees ate many more insects that prey on mosquitoes than they did mosquitoes.
If there were fewer insects that preyed on mosquitoes, that means fewer mosquitoes would die to those insects. This is how the net effect of the birds could have been an increase in mosquitoes, even if the birds did eat many mosquitoes.
D
Since the trees were planted, the annual precipitation has been below average, and drier weather tends to keep mosquito populations down.
This deepens our confusion. If there has been below-average rain after the trees were planted, we’d expect lower mosquito populations. But the mosquito population increased.
E
Increases and decreases in mosquito populations tend to follow a cyclical pattern.
But if we introduce trees that attract birds, and the birds eat many mosquitoes, we’d still expect mosquito population not to increase. Whatever happens generally concerning mosquito populations doesn’t impact what we’d expect to happen after introducing the trees.

13 comments

Jake: Companies have recently introduced antibacterial household cleaning products that kill common bacteria on surfaces like countertops and floors. It’s clear that people who want to minimize the amount of bacteria in their homes should use cleaning products that contain antibacterial agents.

Karolinka: But studies also suggest that the use of these antibacterial cleaning products can be harmful, since common bacteria that survive the use of these products will eventually produce strains of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. That’s why antibacterial agents should not be used in household cleaning products.

Speaker 1 Summary

Jake claims that people who want to reduce bacteria in their homes should use antibacterial cleaning products. Why? Because these products kill common bacteria on household surfaces.

Speaker 2 Summary

Karolinka argues that cleaning products shouldn’t use antibacterial agents. As support, Karolinka says that studies show that antibacterial cleaning products can be harmful. How so? Because their use can produce antibiotic-resistant bacteria over time. (The unstated assumption is that antibiotic-resistant bacteria are harmful.)

Objective

We need to find something that Jake and Karolinka agree on. They agree that antibacterial cleaning products are effective at killing bacteria in the short term.

A
Household cleaning products with antibacterial agents kill some common bacteria.

Jake agrees with this, and so does Karolinka, so this is the point of agreement. Jake states this directly as a premise. Karolinka talks about antibacterial products producing antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which requires killing off the non-resistant bacteria.

B
Household cleaning products with antibacterial agents remove dirt better than do products lacking those agents.

Neither speaker talks about how effective antibiotic cleaning products are at removing dirt. The conversation is just focused on how the products affect bacteria.

C
The use of antibacterial agents in household cleaning products can produce antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

Karolinka agrees with this, but Jake never expresses an opinion. In fact, Jake most likely disagrees, because he recommends using antibacterial cleaning products to minimize the amount of bacteria in a home. Creating resistant bacteria doesn’t sound like minimizing anything.

D
Common household bacteria are a serious health concern.

Neither speaker talks about how serious of a health concern is posed by common household bacteria. The only possible harm mentioned is when Karolinka talks about antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and even then there’s no indication of how serious a risk that would be.

E
People should use household cleaning products with antibacterial agents to clean their homes.

Karolinka disagrees, but if you look closely, Jake doesn’t express an opinion. Jake only says that if people want to minimize the amount of bacteria, then they should use antibacterial products. Also, even if Jake stated an opinion, he would probably not agree with Karolinka.


6 comments

Prosecutor: Dr. Yuge has testified that, had the robbery occurred after 1:50 A.M., then, the moon having set at 1:45 A.M., it would have been too dark for Klein to recognize the perpetrator. But Yuge acknowledged that the moon was full enough to provide considerable light before it set. And we have conclusively shown that the robbery occurred between 1:15 and 1:30 A.M. So there was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification.

Summarize Argument

The prosecutor concludes that there was enough light for Klein to make a reliable identification. He supports this with the fact that the moon was full enough to provide considerable light before it set, and that the robbery happened before the moon set.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The prosecutor assumes that there was enough light for Klein to identify the robber because the robbery happened before the moon set and the moon was full enough to provide considerable light. But just because the moon provided considerable light doesn’t mean that it provided enough for Klein to identify the robber. There could be other reasons the light wasn’t sufficient at that time, even with the nearly full moon.

A
Klein may be mistaken about the time of the robbery and so it may have taken place after the moon had set.

The prosecutor doesn’t overlook this possibility. One of his premises states that he has “conclusively shown” when the robbery took place. This fact doesn’t necessarily rely on Klein’s memory at all, because it’s already been established.

B
The perpetrator may closely resemble someone who was not involved in the robbery.

This may be true, but it doesn’t affect whether there was enough light for Klein to be able to identify the perpetrator. The prosecutor doesn’t conclude that Klein correctly identified the perpetrator, just that there was enough light for him to make an identification.

C
Klein may have been too upset to make a reliable identification even in good light.

Like (B), this may be true, but it doesn’t affect the conclusion. Even if Klein was too upset and didn’t make an identification at all, it wouldn’t impact whether there was enough light for him to be able to do so.

D
Without having been there, Dr. Yuge has no way of knowing whether the light was sufficient.

Dr. Yuge simply “acknowledged that the moon was full enough to provide considerable light before it set.” He never claims that the light was sufficient, only the prosecutor makes that claim.

E
During the robbery the moon’s light may have been interfered with by conditions such as cloud cover.

Just because the nearly full moon provided considerable light doesn’t mean that light was sufficient for Klein to make an identification. Perhaps other factors interfered with the light, making it insufficient despite the nearly full moon.


55 comments

The number of airplanes equipped with a new anticollision device has increased steadily during the past two years. During the same period, it has become increasingly common for key information about an airplane’s altitude and speed to disappear suddenly from air traffic controllers’ screens. The new anticollision device, which operates at the same frequency as air traffic radar, is therefore responsible for the sudden disappearance of key information.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that a new anticollision device is responsible for the sudden disappearance of information from air traffic controllers’ screens. This is based on the observation that over the last two years, the anticollision device has become more popular, while at the same time, the information disappearances have become more frequent.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that just because there’s a correlation between the use of the new anticollision device and information disappearing from air traffic controllers’ screens, the former must be causally contributing to the latter. This means that the author assumes there isn’t some other cause for the disappearing information.

A
The new anticollision device has already prevented a considerable number of mid-air collisions.
This does not weaken the argument, because it’s totally unrelated to the author’s hypothesis. The author isn’t saying we should stop using the anticollision device, just that it’s interfering with air traffic control information. This isn’t at all relevant to that claim.
B
It was not until the new anticollision device was introduced that key information first began disappearing suddenly from controllers’ screens.
This does not weaken the argument. In fact, it may even strengthen the argument by establishing a stronger temporal connection between the use of the new device and the information disappearance.
C
The new anticollision device is scheduled to be moved to a different frequency within the next two to three months.
This does not weaken the argument, because it doesn’t give us any reason to believe that the device may not interfere with air traffic control. If the frequency had been switched but information kept disappearing, that could weaken—but that’s not what this says.
D
Key information began disappearing from controllers’ screens three months before the new anticollision device was first tested.
This weakens the argument by undermining the temporal link between the use of the new device and the disappearing information. It still doesn’t tell us the true cause, but if the information was disappearing without the device ever being used, there must be another cause.
E
The sudden disappearance of key information from controllers’ screens has occurred only at relatively large airports.
This does not weaken the argument. We don’t know enough about how frequently the disappearances happen, how many planes use the new device, and so on, for this to be helpful. As it is, this doesn’t tell us anything about whether the new device truly causes interference.

2 comments