Q5 - Salmon farmer: Farm-raised salmon in preferable

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Best reason to prefer farmed salmon is ecological.
Evidence: As demand for farmed salmon rises, the market for wild salmon (which are threatened) decreases, which lets more wild fish live / multiply / proliferate.

Answer Anticipation:
If we haven't heard any assumptions we want to find or objections we want to raise, we can help our brains by thinking: "GIVEN this evidence, HOW CAN I ARGUE the anti-conclusion?"

Given that more farmed salmon would mean less market for wild salmon, allowing wild salmon to raise population numbers ... how can we argue that farmed salmon is NOT to be loved for its ecological impact?

We would basically need an answer that suggests that something that is an effect of farmed salmon has a negative ecological impact. Maybe creating the salmon farms ruins local soil or water. Maybe feeding the farmed salmon involves some shady ecological practice. Maybe the poopy or disease-infested farmed-salmon water leeches out into local water supplies (sorry, that's something I read in an RC passage about this).

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This looks good. If you have to suck up lots of small fish to feed your farmed salmon, then the wild salmon you're leaving untouched will not necessarily be able to thrive and multiply (with large quantities of their food supply subtracted from their environment). In other words, this aspect of farmed salmon messes up the ecology of wild salmon environments.

(B) SO wishy-washy. Some is better. Some isn't. That type of answer could almost never be correct on Strengthen, Weaken, or Explain/Resolve! No impact. Also, quality of salmon has nothing to do with our agenda: is farmed salmon good/bad on an ECOLOGICAL level.

(C) "Awareness of taste" has nothing to do with ecological impact.

(D) Retail price of salmon has nothing to do with ecological impact.

(E) This strengthens the argument. It makes farmed salmon sound better.

Takeaway/Pattern: One important aspect of dealing with this problem efficiently is to ignore the first sentence. We know that "but / yet / however" almost always indicates a transition away from background or other points of view and into our author's argument. The conclusion is specifically about the ecological impact of farmed salmon, so most of these answers could be quickly seen to be irrelevant.

#officialexplanation

[EddieM609]

(Possibly overthinking, but) I don't quite know if I can see E as strengthening, or understand why it's wrong.

The argument, as I understand it, isn't just that there's a strong ecological benefit to buying farmed salmon. It's that the ecological benefit of doing so is the MOST important reason why you should buy farmed salmon--more important than any other factor, including the low price and constant availability mentioned in the stimulus.

So E gave me some trouble: It does, as you say, provide a reason why farmed salmon is better than wild salmon. But couldn't this additional benefit of increased safety actually also weaken the argument by suggesting a competing advantage for farmed over wild salmon--something that might be an even MORE important reason to buy farmed salmon than its ecological benefit? Maybe I'm missing something, either in my understanding of the argument or the answer, or maybe this is just a stretch? I chose the right answer but would love some guidance on why E is definitely wrong.

[Laura Damone]

I see the direction that you're going. But consider this analogy. If I said that the best reason to study for the LSAT is to improve your ability to reason logically, would it weaken my claim if you said that you're studying for the LSAT primarily to get into law school? I don't think so. Providing an alternative reason doesn't get in the way of my original reason being the best reason. You'd really need to show that your reason is better in order to weaken my claim.

The same is true for E. Is it an alternative reason to the ecological one presented? Definitely. But it isn't presented in such a way that it outranks the original reason? I don't think so.

It's also pretty weak. It tells us wild salmon are more likely to have consumed the pollutants than farmed salmon, but how much more likely? Maybe the difference is pretty negligible. And these pollutants harmful to humans? Well...they may be, but we don't know for sure. Weak language like this is a red flag in Strengthen and Weaken questions, because we need the right answer to be strong enough to actually impact the argument.

Hope this helps!