CR: Despite advances in geothermal technology and equipment

[vikas.panghal]

Despite advances in geothermal technology and equipment, experts rarely agree which method is the best indicator of a likely source of oil. Some believe the cycle of environmental changes determines the primary sources for crude oil, while others look to the evolution of organic matter as the most significant indicator. What they do agree on however, is where oil won’t be found. They agree that in areas that were scraped clean of organic sedimentary deposits by glaciers during the last million years or so, the biological "ingredients" that they believe are necessary for the formation of oil and gas are not present. That is, where glaciers have scoured a land mass, oil and gas will not be found.
Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the geologists’ view?
A) Relatively little of the earth’s surface is known to rest above the sort of organic sedimentary deposits described above.
B) Despite the existence of permanent glaciers, oil has been found at both the North and South Poles.
C) There are too many variables for experts to be able to identify what does and does not need to be present for the formation of oil.
D) The glacier theory cannot help locate oil in the ocean since ocean beds went untouched by glaciers.
E) Oil deposits of non-biological origin exist below the crust of the entire earth, and are brought nearer to the surface by cracks in the crust.

OA:E

Source: Princeton Tests.

My take on this is B. As the argument says "since the glaciers have scoured a land mass, oil and gas will not be found.", the option "B" states the opposite of it and is weakening the argument. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

~VP

[sunny.jain]

Hmm...B and E are very close, B is very tempting.

Conclusion : geologists do not share same view on the method to find oil source, However, they do share a common view for non-oil source.

Supporting Argument :
For disagreement : 1) Some say "Environmental Changes" are prime source.
2) Evolution of Organic matter is best indicator.

For agreement :
Places (with Organic sediments) which are scrapped by glacier
doesn't contain Oil and gas.
(They are also saying that these organic sediments were also deposit by glaciers, but Glaciers them selves has scrapped them)

Weaken the question:
Attack on the arguments, make them weak.

A) It has nothing to do with author argument.

B) good, It says something to disapprove, but it doesn't say that whether glaciers at north and South poles have scrapped the organic sediments.

C) I think this is actually agreement with Geologist disagreement on common method to find source of oil.

D) Supporting the Geologist agreement that Glaciers can actually scrapped the surface and eliminate the possibility of oil.

E) Although I am really not sure about this Choice,
but in the last few lines, author said "the biological "ingredients" that they believe are necessary for the formation of oil and gas"..

E Says, oil can exist because of 'Non-Biological Ingredients', Which put the Geologist believe in doubt. So can lead to prove them wrong.

But this is really a tricky Question.

[Ben Ku]

The key to difficult CR problems is to be very careful with every word.

The argument tells us where oil will not be found: "areas that were scraped clean ... by glaciers during the last million years or so." The argument re-states the same thing right after: "where glaciers have scoured a land mass, oil and gas will not be found."

Answer choice (B) states: "Despite the existence of permanent glaciers, oil has been found at both the North and South Poles." If the glaciers exist permanently in the poles, then they are just sitting there, rather than scouring or scraping the mass under them. Also, permanent implies that there was no movement over the last million years.

The geologists do agree that: "organic sedimentary deposits ..., the biological 'ingredients' ... are necessary for the formation of oil and gas." It seems that the geologists agree that ALL oil and gas have organic/biological origins. Answer choice (E) states: "Oil deposits of non-biological origin exist below the crust of the entire earth, and are brought nearer to the surface by cracks in the crust." This weakens the geologists' argument because it suggests that oil can be found in places where there are no biological/organic matter.

Hope that helps.