Question #1199

Stuck between B and E

Started by Angel92 · started 2022-05-17 23:06 · last activity 2022-05-28 19:45 · 1 reply

The fishing industry cannot currently be relied upon to help the government count the seabirds killed by net fishing, since an accurate count might result in restriction of net fishing. The government should therefore institute a program under which tissue samples from the dead birds are examined to determine the amount of toxins in the fish eaten by the birds. The industry would then have a reason to turn in the bird carcasses, since the industry needs to know whether the fish it catches are contaminated with toxins. Which one of the following, if true, most strongly indicates that the government program would not by itself provide an accurate count of the seabirds killed by net fishing? I was stuck between B and E. I picked E over B because I was unable to pick up from the stimulus if there was such intoxication to begin with. If there is toxins in the seabirds then would've that alone inhibit the fishing industry to stop bringing in birds carcasses? I see as the main purpose of the argument is to prove whether seabirds are being killed by net fishing NOT toxins. How does E not weaken the whole goal to bringing in bird carcasses to catch toxins only to find out that there toxin free then the whole goal would fall apart. From my understanding of this explanation for E is that the certification would stop the fishing industry from bringing in carcasses because they don't want the public to find out that there birds are not toxic free??? It seems to me the explanation would also weaken I don't understand how it neither weakens nor strengthens. I look forward to your explanation because I'm having a hard time seeing how E isn't strong enough to destroy the goal of the argument. Unless I'm not understanding the purpose?

Replies

  1. Emil-Kunkin · 2022-05-28 19:45

    Hi Angel92, You are right that the goal of the program (and the main point follows from this) is to count how many birds are killed by nets, and the program aims to overcome the resistance of fishermen by aligning their self interest (knowing if their fish are contaminated) with the government's interest (counting the dead birds). Since we are trying to weaken this reasoning, we should be looking for an answer choice that would, for some reason, tell us that even if this program is implemented the government may not get an accurate count of the birds killed by fishing nets. Let's examine (E). We don't care about any certification or lack thereof, all we know is that fishers want to be sure their fish are safe to eat, and if anything, the presence of a government safety certification would actually help the fishermen. This would then encourage them to turn in more of the dead birds, giving the government a more accurate count. I think E actually strengthens the argument by giving the fishers a stronger incentive to turn over all their dead birds. (B), on the other hand, tells us that fishermen would only have to hand over a few birds to determine if toxins are present. Let's imagine that 100 birds are killed per day, but that the government lab only needs to analyze 5 to determine if there are toxins. This would give the fishermen an incentive to only hand over 5 dead birds, and hide the other 95 birds. In other words, this would mean that the government program would not result in an accurate count, which undermines the whole rationale for implementing it in the first place.

Sign in to reply.