Principle: People should not feed wild animals because it makes them dependent on humans and less likely to survive on their own.
Situation: Bird lovers commonly feed wild birds to attract them to their yards and gardens.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
How can feeding wild birds be justified when doing so makes the birds dependent on humans and less likely to survive on their own?
Objective
The stimulus provides a general principle and then a specific example of a behavior that defies the principle’s suggestion. In order to justify the specific example, the right answer must add some information about the lived reality of the bird lovers and the birds that the general principle fails to account for or consider.
A
Congregating around human bird feeders makes wild birds more vulnerable to predators and diseases.
This is the opposite of helpful. Instead of explaining why feeding birds could be justified, (A) adds another reason why it isn’t.
B
Some species of wild birds benefit humans by consuming large numbers of mosquitoes and other insect pests.
We need an answer that justifies feeding birds, not an explanation of how birds benefit humanity. Additionally, by describing how birds benefit humans, (B) adds to the importance of protecting birds, which does the opposite of justifying feeding—and thereby harming—them.
C
Wild birds are much more likely to congregate in yards where they are fed than in yards where they are not fed.
This makes sense—of course birds are more likely to flock to a place where they’re provided with food! If this answer went further and told us that bird congregation is good for birds in some way, it might’ve been right. As it is, (C) doesn’t provide the justification we need.
D
Most bird lovers are very active in efforts to preserve the habitats of threatened species of wild birds and other animals.
This has nothing to do with feeding birds, so it doesn’t justify that act. It might make us more sympathetic to bird lovers—at least they’re trying to preserve habitats even though they’re also harming birds by feeding them—but it doesn’t justify the choice to feed the birds.
E
Human settlement is so pervasive in the habitat of most wild birds that they must depend in part on human sources of food for survival.
This is the justification we’re looking for! Even if it’s theoretically bad to feed birds because it makes them dependent on humans, the reality is that most wild birds already depend on humans, so feeding them is actually important for their survival.
Michaela: I think doctors who complain about patients doing medical research on the Internet are being a little unfair. It seems only natural that a patient would want to know as much as possible about his or her condition.
Sam: It is not unfair. Doctors have undergone years of training. How can you maintain that a doctor’s opinion is not worth more than something an untrained person comes up with after searching the Internet?
Summary
In response to Michaela’s claim that doctors are being unfair when complaining about patients doing their own medical research, Sam states that these doctors are not being unfair because doctors have years of training. Sam asks how Michaela can believe a doctor’s opinion is not worth more than an untrained person.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
The opinions of untrained patients are worth just as much as a doctor’s opinion.
A
health information found on the Internet is trustworthy
This answer is unsupported. Sam does not make a judgment call whether this information is in fact trustworthy or not.
B
the opinion of a patient who has done Internet research on his or her condition should have at least as much weight as the opinion of a doctor
This answer is strongly supported. Sam asks Michaela how she can maintain that a doctor’s opinion is not worth more than that of an untrained person.
C
the opinion of a patient’s own doctor should not be given more weight than the opinions of doctors published on websites
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not give us any information allowing us to make comparisons between doctors. We only have information to compare the opinions of doctors and untrained persons.
D
a doctor’s explanation of a patient’s symptoms should be taken more seriously than the patient’s own view of his or her symptoms
This answer is unsupported. Sam’s response indicates she believes a patient’s opinions should not hold as much weight as that of a doctor’s, not that doctor’s opinions should be taken more seriously.
E
patients who do not research their conditions on the Internet give their doctors’ opinions more consideration
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what type of patients take their doctor’s opinions more seriously.