PrepTest 140

Incorrect. While this doesn't directly connect sunspot activity to the snowshoe hare population, it does connect it with the predator population, which has already been established as being causally related to snowshoe populations. Causality can chain together, so this answer strengthens the argument and can be eliminated.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Bizarro Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Snowshoe hares and predators are involved in a causal cycle, but it can't explain why all snowshoe hare populations are on the same cycle. Sunspots are also correlated with the snowshoe hare population cycle, so they're probably a causal factor.

Answer Anticipation:
There's a lot of information about the snowshoe hare/predator population cycles here, but the argument pivots away from that in stating that it doesn't tell the full story. The argument after the pivot is about the connection between sunspots and the hare population—they're correlated. It jumps from that correlation to stating sunspots are a causal factor in the snowshoe hare populations, so we have a traditional correlation/causation flaw in the argument. As such, common answers that will strengthen the argument (wrong answers in this Bizarro Strengthen) are:

(1) Eliminating alternative causes (though this won't work as normal here since the conclusion is just that sunspots are a causal factor, not the cause)
(2) More examples of sunspots and populations being causally related
(3) "Controls" where the cause wasn't present and neither was the effect

Outside of these, anything connecting sunspots to snowshoe hare populations will strengthen the argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is trying to get you to bite on an alternative cause—weather patterns that are unrelated to sunspot activity. However, as we noted in our anticipation, since the conclusion is that sunspots are just one factor in the population changes, identifying other causal factors won't affect the argument. Additionally, to strengthen an argument, the alternative cause would have to be eliminated, not identified as this answer choice does. This answer choice has no effect on the argument, and it hints at a traditional weaken answer choice, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
There are two common methods of strengthening a causal relationship relied on in these answers. First, while correlation doesn't prove causation, it provides evidence for it, so strengthening correlations strengthens the argument for a causal relationship. Second, in highlighting how the supposed cause can lead to the given effect, that relationship is strengthened.

Incorrect. If sunspots make it easier for predators to hunt hares, then that would explain the causal connection between sunspots and hare population.

Incorrect. This answer strengthens the correlation between sunspots and hare populations. While correlation can't prove causation, stronger correlations strengthen the argument for causality, which is all we need for a Strengthen answer. To show this, think about the following—if you eat at a restaurant once and get food poisoning, you might be suspicious of the restaurant, but also of the other food you ate. If it happens 3 times, you're probably much more convinced that the restaurant is causing the food poisoning.

Incorrect. This answer, similar to (C), explains how sunspots could cause changes in hare population, thus strengthening the argument.