question 13 sec 2 June '14

@jack515, Happy to help. We're tasked identifying the role that the claim that there has recently been reforestation plays in the ornithologists' argument. We know that the overall conclusion of their argument is that matters continue to worsen in spite of recent reforestation efforts. The support for the conclusion that matters continue to worsen is since it is fragmentation of forest rather than reduction of forest size that endangers songbird species. Further support for the conclusion is given when the stimulus describes why open spaces and corridors are problematic to songbirds (they reduce the distances of songbird nests from unforested areas and thus reduce the songbirds' natural shield from predators). Based on our analysis of the argument, it sounds like the claim that there has been recent reforestation is something that is described as something that is happening but is not preventing the outcome of the conclusion. Let's look at the answer choices now. Answer A is incorrect because it says that the claim that there has recently been reforestation is used as evidence that various species of songbirds will continue to be threatened with extinction. It's not used as evidence; it's not reforestation that's causing songbirds to be continuing to face the threat of extinction, it's in spite of reforestation efforts, matters are worsening for songbirds. This answer is out. Answer B is incorrect because the ornithologists are not rejecting the claim that there has been recent forestation. In fact, they acknowledge this claim. This answer is out. Answer C is correct; it says that the claim is presented as a phenomenon that is compatible with the ornithologists' claim that the threat to songbirds continues to worsen. This is correct. The claim is a phenomenon that we would expect to help the problem, but we're shown that it is actually compatible with the problem worsening. Answer D is incorrect because the claim is not used as evidence that the songbirds' predators will continue to have a habitat. For one, this is descriptively inaccurate. Secondly, we don't even know where the songbirds' predators' habitat is. Answer E is incorrect because it says that the claim is used for evidence that songbirds' predators are threatened by extinction unless they have open spaces and corridors that give them access to their prey. We have no idea whether or not the songbirds' predators are facing extinction, so this answer is out. It's also out because, most importantly, it doesn't describe the role that the claim plays in the ornithologists' argument. Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any more questions—we're here to help!

you said that C is correct because reforestation is "compatible with the condition worsening." Since that is the case, doesn't it serve as evidence that songbirds are continuing to face the threat of extinction?

I'm just not sure how to differentiate answer c from answer a since both seem to rely on the fact that reforestation creates evidence or support that the threat to songbirds continues to worsen.

Hi @Adam-Estacio, It's true that reforestation is compatible with the threat to songbirds continuing to get worse. However, if we look carefully at the way the question is phrased, it asks for the role of the claim. Reforestation is not brought up as evidence for songbirds being threatened with extinction. It is brought up as something that we might think would work against songbird extinction, but may not be effective as we think it would be. The purpose here is key. Hope this helps.