Inference Question

[APARIDA]

Hi,

I came across the following RC question in MGMAT CAT. The official explanation for the answer choice somehow does not sound very convincing. Please help.

Passage:

The golden toad of Costa Rica, whose beauty and rarity inspired an unusual degree of human interest from a public generally unconcerned about amphibians, may have been driven to extinction by human activity nevertheless. In the United States, a public relations campaign featuring the toad raised money to purchase and protect the toad’s habitat in Costa Rica, establishing the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve in 1972. Although this action seemed to secure the toad's future, it is now apparent that setting aside habitat was not enough to save this beautiful creature. The toad's demise in the late 1980s was a harbinger of further species extinction in Costa Rica. Since that time, another twenty of the fifty species of frogs and toads known to once inhabit a 30 square kilometer area near Monteverde have disappeared.
The unexplained, relatively sudden disappearance of amphibians in Costa Rica is not a unique story. Populations of frogs, toads, and salamanders have declined or disappeared the world over. Scientists hypothesize that the more subtle effects of human activities on the world's ecosystems, such as the build-up of pollutants, the decrease in atmospheric ozone, and changing weather patterns due to global warming, are beginning to take their toll. Perhaps amphibians - whose permeable skin makes them sensitive to environmental changes - are the "canary in the coal mine," giving us early notification of the deterioration of our environment. If amphibians are the biological harbingers of environmental problems, humans would be wise to heed their warning.

The passage implies that
A. many amphibians are not considered beautiful.
B. the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve was not large enough to protect the golden toad.
C. only Costa Rican amphibians living near Monteverde have disappeared since the 1980s.
D. amphibians sometimes live in coal mines.
E. no humans yet consider the decline of amphibious populations an indication of a threat to human populations.


Here the OA is "A" and that's what I answered because the other choices are even worse.

Official explanation for OA is:

This question is really just a disguised inference question. The correct answer to an inference question must be directly supported by evidence from the text.

(A) CORRECT. The first sentence of the passage states that the beauty of Costa Rica’s golden toad was one factor that generated interest from a public normally unconcerned with amphibians. Thus, many amphibians must not be considered beautiful.


My understanding is that an "inference" must be true given what's stated in the paragraph.

I am not very sure how we can convincingly infer "many amphibians are not considered beautiful" from the premise "The golden toad of Costa Rica, whose beauty and rarity inspired an unusual degree of human interest from a public generally unconcerned about amphibians".

Here, there are two reasons why people are interested. 1) Golden toad's beauty 2) It's rarity.

No statement in this passage rules out the possibility that other amphibians could be as beautiful as the golden toad but they are so densely populated that no one really cares about them.

Above reasoning closely resembles the following:

Britney Spears is a popular singer because she is beautiful and she sings well.

Inference: Other unpopular singers are not beautiful.

This does not sound right. Please explain.

Thanks for your help.

[JonathanSchneider]

Actually, I totally agree with you. I still believe that A is correct, but not as an inference, only as an implication. These are different. An inference must be more logically sound than an implication.

I'll take a look into updating this explanation.

Thanks for your post!

[jonathanc]

Hi Jonathan,

Did you come to a conclusion regarding this answer ? I had this question too and I still don't really understand even why A is better than E .

I will not rewrite the previous argument of Aparida with whom I agree totally about A.

So conclusion A is way to strong and and it should be "The passage implies that many amphibians are not considered as beautiful and rare" , I did choose to dismiss it because the Set of condition was A AND B together and not A or B.

But for E the official correction is the following :" The final sentence of the passage indicates that humans would be wise to recognize the potential environmental deterioration signified by declining amphibious population, but it is too extreme to infer that no humans consider this decline a threat to humans. In fact, the author of the passage seems to consider it a threat!"

Why is it too extreme to infer that no" humans consider this decline a threat to humans "? The author words are : " If amphibians are (...) Harbingers (...)humans would be wise", so he doesn't dismiss anybody, and seems to include every humans. For the "If" part he already answered a little bit earlier by talking about the decline of species and the currently payed "tolls" so we know the If according to the author is mainly rhetorical. He even says one sentence before that he thinks "perhaps amphibians (...) giv(e) an early notification(...)" . And I dont see why we should assume that the author of the article is Human. Maybe it 's an ALien , a speaking toad or whatever anyway.

I fully understand that E is not perfect especially with the very extrem No Human but still I can not help thinking it is less bad than A, so an explanation would be welcome.


Thanks,

John

[k_umashankara]

Toad's extinsion is an example for impacts of environmental changes on humans. First paragraph serves an example tp support the main theme in 2nd paragraph. While answering the inference questions, example should not be considered. This is the reason ans (e) should be choosen over (a).

[johnnypchen]

I picked (E) too - I think A is the "right" answer only because I realize there is a "no humans" in E, which is pretty extreme. So A is more right than E, although I was skeptical about A at first.

[RonPurewal]

I fully understand that E is not perfect especially with the very extrem No Human but still I can not help thinking it is less bad than A, so an explanation would be welcome.


Thanks,

John

hi jon.

you are correct in noting that the extreme nature of "no humans" makes it incorrect.

what you're overlooking, on the other hand, is the flipside of the same reasoning: namely, the decidedly non-extreme nature of "MANY amphibians" in choice (a).

if BOTH beauty AND rarity inspired "an unusual degree of interest", then there must be some non-beautiful amphibians (else beauty would not be mentioned), and there must be some non-rare amphibians (else rarity would not be mentioned).

this cements choice (a).

[RonPurewal]

No statement in this passage rules out the possibility that other amphibians could be as beautiful as the golden toad but they are so densely populated that no one really cares about them.

yes, but the fact that beauty is mentioned as one of the two things generating unusual interest in the toad implies that it is actually a meaningful criterion - i.e., a criterion that is passed by some toads and failed by others.
were all toads beautiful, the passage would not mention beauty as causative in generating public interest in the toad.

for instance, all toads have four legs, so that would be a non-meaningful criterion. i think you can appreciate the absurdity of writing "The golden toad of Costa Rica, whose beauty, rarity, and four-legged body inspired an unusual degree of human interest...".

in any case, if you view logic in a strictly mathematical sense, then yes, there's a small problem with choice (a). but there's a much, much bigger problem with choice (e), in which "NO humans" is clearly not justifiable.

[jonathanc]

Ron,

Thanks for this very clear explanation which fully clear my doubts.

John

[esledge]

On behalf of Ron, you are welcome. Thanks Ron!

[as2764]

Above reasoning closely resembles the following:

Britney Spears is a popular singer because she is beautiful and she sings well.

Inference: Other unpopular singers are not beautiful.

the above inference would have resembled accurately if it said:
many unpopular singers are not beautiful

an assumption here is:
beauty and good singing quality make one a popular singer.

while other possible inferences, i think, can be:
a. beauty and good singing quality can make one a popular singer.
b. many unpopular singers do not possess both beauty and good singing quality
c. beauty alone may not make you a popular singer.
d. good singing quality alone may not make you a popular singer.

notice that a-d are all mild, while what you stated was strong and introduced an extreme correlation that unpopularity of a singer and ugliness always correlate.

[as2764]

thanks, Ron. clear and concise as always!

here's another way i thought of comparing (E) and (A):

(E) says no humans yet consider the decline of amphibious populations an indication of a threat to human populations.

from 2nd para: Scientists hypothesize that the more subtle effects of human activities on the world's ecosystems .... are beginning to take their toll..... If amphibians are the biological harbingers of environmental problems, humans would be wise to heed their warning.

all that the passage says is human actions may (scientists hypothesize) have affected the environment negatively and that amphibians can be a flashlight to see what's happening inside an underground tunnel.

the decline could mean a threat to the environment, BUT the fact that the decline is a threat to human populations is NOT MENTIONED -- that takes you out into the REAL WORLD!

(A) says many amphibians are not considered particularly beautiful

from the 1st para:
The golden toad of Costa Rica, whose beauty and rarity inspired an unusual degree of human interest from a public generally unconcerned about amphibians

step-by-step implication:
> the public don't normally care about amphibians (unconcerned)
> but the the golden toad was so beautiful and rare that it generated an unusual level of human interest
> meaning amphibians other than the golden toad are not as beautiful and rare for people to become interested in them

(A), i think, may not be the best, but is the best among the given 5 choices.

[jnelson0612]

Nice analysis ashish. I agree, and I would also add that in choice E, "no humans" is really extreme language--all we need to do is find one human considers the decline an indication to contradict choice E.

[as2764]

yes, E is extreme, and the strategy you mentioned to eliminate extreme ans choices would def come handy when making an educated guess.

also, isn't E out of scope in this example?

[jnelson0612]

yes, E is extreme, and the strategy you mentioned to eliminate extreme ans choices would def come handy when making an educated guess.

also, isn't E out of scope in this example?

Maybe a little, but not as extreme as an out of scope usually is. The passage does seem to imply that humans should pay attention to whether our environmental activities are harming the amphibian population, as there may be negative results for us as well.

[as2764]

interesting, then i would think this is more like a partially relevant ans choice -- a choice that seems to have some relevance, but then goes tangential. meaning the passage does talk about causing harm to environment (maybe amphibians), but not to human populations. because starting to think like:
human activities cause --> env damage --> amphibians also hurt --> so human population will eventually be hurt
is real-world thinking

as always, thanks Jamie!