16Hit1600
Information and IdeasHardInference

Information and Ideas practice question

A team compared two nearby lakes. In the lake stocked with introduced trout, populations of native frogs had collapsed, while the trout-free lake still teemed with frogs. The trout are known to eat frog tadpoles.

Which choice most logically completes the text with a conclusion the evidence supports?

  1. A. The introduced trout likely contributed to the decline of the native frogs.Correct
  2. B. The native frogs will soon disappear from every lake in the region.
  3. C. The trout-free lake has warmer water than the stocked lake.
  4. D. Native frogs cannot survive in any lake that contains fish.

Answer: A. The introduced trout likely contributed to the decline of the native frogs.

Frogs collapsed only where trout that eat tadpoles were introduced, while a comparable trout-free lake still had frogs — this points to the trout contributing to the decline (A). B and D overgeneralize ('every lake,' 'any lake with fish') far beyond the two-lake comparison; C introduces water temperature, which the text never mentions.

Why the other answers are wrong

B. The native frogs will soon disappear from every lake in the region.
The evidence covers exactly two lakes, and one of them still teems with frogs, so predicting disappearance from *every* lake in the region goes far past what the comparison shows.
C. The trout-free lake has warmer water than the stocked lake.
Water temperature is never mentioned; the only difference the text identifies between the lakes is the presence of tadpole-eating trout.
D. Native frogs cannot survive in any lake that contains fish.
The study involves one species of introduced trout in one lake, which can't support a claim about frogs in *any* lake containing *any* fish.

More Information and Ideas questions

Not affiliated with the College Board. SAT is a trademark of the College Board.