Q22 - A scientist made three

[ldanny24]

I was wondering if someone could please clarify number 22? For E the fact that in the tropics food is "less plentiful" in the ocean than in fresh water could be irrelevant, since "less plentiful" could still be a very minor difference. It could be that the ocean had 70% food while the fresh water had 69%. Thus enabling migratory fish to mature in fresh water and later spawn in the ocean. I don't see how that would call into question the hypothesis. Thank You.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I think you're closer than you think. The scientist's hypothesis is that food supply is a determining factor in the migration of migratory fish.

Suppose that in the tropics, the difference between the food supply in fresh water and the food supply in the ocean was as little as you suggested. That would seriously call into question the scientist's hypothesis, since we could no longer use the food supply as a reason for why the fish are migrating. If in the tropics however, the food supply is greater in fresh water than in the ocean then that would support the scientists hypothesis.

In short, before we could use the reverse migratory pattern of fish in the tropics to undermine the original hypothesis, we would need to know what the food supply looks like in the tropics.

Answer choice (E) addresses this issue perfectly.

Does that answer your question?

[ldanny24]

Thanks for the reply I think I got it