Watanabe: To protect the native kokanee salmon in the lake, we must allow fishing of native trout. Each mature trout ...

alicat6 on August 15, 2020

Is E wrong because it steps outside the bounds of the stimulus?

Is E wrong because it says "prime reproductive years?" I chose this because I felt it got the idea across about saving the younger fish rather than older ones. But when I got it wrong I realized that just because the fish are young, does not mean they are necessarily in their prime reproductive years. Is that why this is wrong? I felt like with a principle question I could stretch the stimulus a little bit and that statement would be okay, but then that would require me to make an assumption that young kakokee fish are in their prime reproductive years. Can you explain if this is the reason why E is wrong? Thank you!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

shunhe on August 17, 2020

Hi @alicat6,

Thanks for the question! Yes, (E) is definitely outside the scope of the stimulus. “Prime reproductive years” is one of those instances. But also, remember what the original argument is talking about. We’re trying to protect the salmon population, and there’s a debate about whether or not we should fish native trout or get rid of the shrimp. But protecting the population and seeking to increase the population are two different things. So what (E)’s talking bout isn’t necessarily even what we’re trying to do here, we might just be trying to hold the population stable. And again, as you mentioned, nothing’s said about the prime reproductive years. Remember, everything needs to be supported by the stimulus. And so those are both reasons for (E) to be wrong.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

alicat6 on August 17, 2020

That makes sense! Thank you for explaining this.