by ohthatpatrick Wed Apr 20, 2016 1:54 pm
Question Type: Necessary Assumption
Task:
Which answer, if negated, most weaken the argument?
ARGUMENT CORE
conc - Inbreeding is an underlying cause of honeybee decline
why?
evid - Inbreeding has led to less genetic diversity
ANALYSIS OF CORE
Okay, so there is some missing link between "less genetic diversity" and "honeybee decline".
Are we basically assuming "less genetic diversity = bad"?
ANSWER CHOICES
(A) commercial vs. wild is not a distinction we care about. This is just about commercial honeybees.
(B) We're not evaluating whether something bad can be reversed. We're evaluating whether less genetic diversity is something bad.
(C) We're not evaluating whether genetic diversity is STILL on the decline. We're evaluating whether lowered genetic diversity is something bad.
(D) This almost goes the opposite direction. The author is assuming that less diversity has led to declines. He doesn't need to assume that populations WITH diversity are also devastated.
(E) This sounds like "less genetic diversity = bad".
How do we clinch our answer on Necessary Assumption? We negate it and see if it would weaken the argument.
negated (E)
"lack of genetic diversity CANNOT make honeybees more vulnerable to adverse conditions"
That completely blows up the conclusion.
Author:
"inbreeding, which lowers genetic diversity, is an underlying cause contributing to the decline of honeybees; the immediate cause is some viral/bacterial/pesticide/mite adverse condition."
negated (E)
"a lack of genetic diversity cannot make honeybees more vulnerable (cannot contribute) to adverse conditions."
Boom!
Hope this helps. Sounded like your confusion stemmed from the weak sounding language of (E). Remember, weak language is a LOVEABLE quality on Necessary Assumption, because when you negate something weak it becomes something strong.
On Necessary Assumption, we're not judging what effect the answer choice has as written. We're judging what effect it would have when negated.