Q14

User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Q14

by ohthatpatrick Tue Oct 08, 2019 12:56 am

Yu440 wrote:
Sorry I also have a question about Q14 but the forum is not publishing that post for some reason. I would like to know why E is wrong please?


I would start by finding the applicable text for when the author gives an opinion on pollution caused by fish farming.

It all seems to come in P2. He's saying that more intensive fish farming often leads to water pollution. There's a bunch of fish crammed into a small area, trapped in a sea of their own poop, spreading pathogens around. If the untreated waste leaks out, it can destroy habitats. This would ultimately damage wild fishery stocks (in contrast to what "some experts" (line 9) have argued).

A) "primarily" is loaded, and mutations aren't even mentioned?

B) "more than any other type" is loaded, and I can't find support for that extreme of a claim.

C) Sure, we have that from lines 19 - 22.
This is a classic "inference inverted syntax" rephrase of a causal difference maker.
(wtf does that mean, Patrick)

Inverted syntax in Inference questions is very common.
line 12: Patrick taller than Kathy.
correct answer: Kathy is shorter than Patrick

line 12: George Washington was the first US President
correct answer: not all nations choose Lenny as their first leader

When you do this inverted syntax with a causal difference maker, it sounds like this:
line 12: I was late, because I stopped to buy some beer.
correct answer: had I not stopped to buy beer, I might have been on time

Lines 19-22: the more intensive forms of fish farming threaten sustainability through water pollution.
correct answer: less intensive forms of fish farming would not threaten sustainability through pollution as much


D) "cannot be prevented" is too loaded. Can't find support.

E) this is saying "even though pollution is harmful, fish farming will still relieve pressure on wild fishery stocks". Our author's thesis is basically arguing AGAINST that claim. Some experts believe that more fish farming will relieve pressure on wild fishery stocks. Our author says in lines 13-14, "there is little, if any, evidence for that view".


Hope this helps.