Traditional hatcheries raise fish in featureless environments and subject them to dull routines, whereas new, experim...

Ravi on August 16, 2019

@Sidra,

Let's look at (C).

Remember, we're looking for a necessary premise, as this is a
strengthen with a necessary premise question. We want a premise that,
if false, makes the argument fall apart. We can use the negation test
to determine whether or not a premise, when negated, makes the
argument fall apart.

(C) says, "Some fish raised in traditional hatcheries die because they
are too timid in their foraging for food."

(C)'s negation is that no fish raised in traditional hatcheries die
because they're too timid in foraging their own food.

(C) is definitely necessary because one of the reasons that the
argument provided for the conclusion was that experimental-raised fish
are bolder in trying new types of food. If (C) is negated ("no fish
raised in traditional hatcheries die because they're too timid in
foraging their own food"), then obviously trying new types of food
would not matter for survival. The argument is definitely making the
assumption that trying new kinds of food increases the odds that a
fish survives in the wild. (C) is telling us that having boldness in
being willing to try new types of food is important for survival, and
this is definitely an assumption that's required for the argument, so
(C) is the correct answer choice.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!