58 LR One Question 24
- « 58 LR One Question 23
- 1795 of 3815
- 58 LR One Question 25 »
Comments
I'm having some difficulty understanding why D doesn't provide evidence to undermine the argument. It would seem to me, that if the population in [areas of] AV, excluding KFP, had been decreasing, it would be just as explanatory, if not better than stating that the population of AV had remained constant. Unless the key difference is that D states "in areas of the AV", vs. the more inclusive "the bear population in AV", such that areas =/= totality. If that is not that case, however, couldn't it just be that we had say, three total bears in AV, two originally falling in the KFP, and as the road closed, that the one other bear moved into the KFP thereby decreasing the bear pop in areas outside of KFP?
Good question, but (D) only operates in the way you suggest if we assume that the decrease outside KFP is commensurate with the increase inside KFP.
But (D) doesn't say that. It doesn't give us numbers or a proportion. Consider this possibility:
If inside we've doubled the population from 400 to 800 bears, and outside we've decreased it from 50 to 48 bears, then (D) offers no weakening; in fact, if we add those (fictional but possible) numbers, (D) strengthens the argument.
So we have to deal with the answers only as they're given, without adding to them.