A stingray without parasites is healthier than it would be if it had parasites. Nevertheless, the lack of parasites in stingrays is an indicator that the ecosystem in which the stingrays live is under environmental stress such as pollution.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Parasites in a stingray are not good for the stingray’s health, but the absence of parasites in a stingray is an indicator that the ecosystem the stingray lives in is under environmental stress.

Objective
The right answer will be a hypothesis that reconciles the seemingly contradictory ideas in the stimulus. It will explain how the presence of parasites in a stingray can be an indication of the stingray’s sub-optimal health while the absence of parasites in a stingray can indicate an ecosystem is of sub-optimal health.

A
During part of their life cycles, the parasites of stingrays require as hosts shrimp or oysters, which are environmentally vulnerable organisms.
This helps reconcile the discrepancy. The absence of parasites in a stingray may indicate that, at the necessary point in their life cycles, the parasites could not find a shrimp or oyster to host them, as these potential hosts were adversely affected by environmental stress.
B
A stingray is a free-ranging predator that feeds on smaller organisms but has few predators itself.
This does not offer information about parasites, which are a key feature of the discrepancy.
C
A parasite drains part of the vitality of its host by drawing nourishment from the host.
The stimulus already says that stingrays with parasites are less healthy than they would be without parasites. The discrepancy involves the absence of parasites in stingrays indicating an environmentally stressed ecosystem, which (C) does not discuss.
D
An ecosystem can be considered stressed if only a few species of very simple organisms can live there.
(D) discusses what could cause an ecosystem to be considered stressed. However, it does not provide new information that reconciles the discrepancy. The stimulus also specifically addresses ecosystems under environmental stress, rather than simply being considered stressed.
E
Since the life of parasites depends on that of their host, they need to live without killing their host or else to reproduce and infect other individuals before their own host dies.
This provides insight into the life of parasites, but not into the discrepancy discussed in the stimulus. (E) does not offer information that explains how parasites can be unhealthy for jellyfish but, when absent in jellyfish, indicate an environmentally stressed ecosystem.

50 comments

An antidote for chicken pox has been developed, but researchers warn that its widespread use could be dangerous, despite the fact that this drug has no serious side effects and is currently very effective at limiting the duration and severity of chicken pox.

"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why are researchers warning that widespread use of the antidote could be dangerous, even though it has no serious side effects and is currently effective at limiting chicken pox?

Objective
The correct answer should tell us some negative effect of widespread use of the antidote. If we don’t have any negative effect from widespread use of the antidote, it will be difficult to explain why researchers are calling its widespread use dangerous.

A
The drug is extremely expensive and would be difficult to make widely available.
The fact that the drug will be difficult to apply widely doesn’t tell me why its widespread use would be dangerous.
B
The drug has to be administered several times a day, so patient compliance is likely to be low.
Unlikelihood of patient compliance doesn’t tell us why widespread use would be dangerous. Maybe patients wouldn’t get the full benefit; that doesn’t make the antidote dangerous if widely used.
C
The drug does not prevent the spread of chicken pox from one person to another, even when the drug eventually cures the disease in the first person.
But if the drug cures the disease in an individual person, why would widespread use be dangerous? We could just cure the disease in many individual people with widespread use.
D
When misused by taking larger-than-prescribed doses, the drug can be fatal.
Risk of overdose is present even when use isn’t widespread. There’s no reason widespread use would increase any particular individual’s chance of an overdose.
E
Use of the drug contributes to the development of deadlier forms of chicken pox that are resistant to the drug.
As the drug is used by and more people, the risk of more resistant, deadlier forms of chicken pox becomes greater. This helps connect how widely the antidote is used with danger, unlike (D).

56 comments

Editorialist: In all cultures, it is almost universally accepted that one has a moral duty to prevent members of one’s family from being harmed. Thus, few would deny that if a person is known by the person’s parents to be falsely accused of a crime, it would be morally right for the parents to hide the accused from the police. Hence, it is also likely to be widely accepted that it is sometimes morally right to obstruct the police in their work.

A
utilizes a single type of example for the purpose of justifying a broad generalization

The editorialist uses an example to support a generalization, but it’s not an overly broad or flawed generalization. She gives one case where it may be considered morally right to obstruct police and then concludes that it’s sometimes considered morally right to obstruct police.

B
fails to consider the possibility that other moral principles would be widely recognized as overriding any obligation to protect a family member from harm

Perhaps most people would not agree that it’s sometimes morally right to obstruct police work because most people believe that some other moral principles, like the duty to follow the law, override the obligation to protect family members.

C
presumes, without providing justification, that allowing the police to arrest an innocent person assists rather than obstructs justice

The editorialist assumes that hiding a wrongfully convicted person obstructs rather than assists police work. She never actually makes any claims about obstructing justice, which may not be the same thing as obstructing police work.

D
takes for granted that there is no moral obligation to obey the law

The editorialist doesn’t assume that there is no obligation to obey the law. She just assumes that the moral duty to protect one’s family sometimes overrides any obligation to obey the law.

E
takes for granted that the parents mentioned in the example are not mistaken about their child’s innocence

The editorialist argues that most people would agree that it’s morally right for parents to hide a child who is known to the parents to be falsely accused of a crime from the police. Whether the child is actually innocent is irrelevant.


67 comments