Q10 - The importance of the ozone layer

[tzyc]

I'd like to double check about (C) and (E)...
(C) is wrong because even though the stimulus says "these holes could lead to severe eye...", this does not mean it will or will not cause damage animal's eyes (no gurantee, just possibility)...is this correct?
And regarding to (E), this is true because the stimulus says "these holes could lead to severe eye damage" so the waves will more likely to reach the earth because of the holes...correct?
But here also says "could lead to" so I'd like to know how much possibilities "could" has...or what it means. While I'm writing this I feel what I wrote kind of contradict each other...

[tommywallach]

Hey Strawberry,

Let's run the whole thing, since we're here anyway!

This is an inference question, so we start by summarizing the important facts in the stimulus:

The ozone layer is important for animals because it filters light. One under-appreciated danger from holes in the ozone layer is that these holes could lead to severe eye damage for many animals.

(A) contradicts the passage. If this were true, then the danger wouldn't exist.

(B) is too extreme. While we know there could be eye damage for "many species," that doesn't mean there aren't also many species who live in places without holes, and thus have no threat of eye damage.

(C) is tempting but not necessarily true. It could be that every animal that lives in a place with a hole in the ozone will eventually suffer eye damage. As long as there are only some holes, this would support that only "many species" would suffer damage (as opposed to all of them). This is similar to your explanation, but a little more specific. Try to think up an example where the answer would be directly contradicted, to support the contention that you just don't know one way or the other.

(D) is too specific. We don't know if it's a single wavelength of sunlight that does damage. It could be multiple wavelengths, all of which come through when there is a hole in the ozone layer.

(E) CORRECT. We know that the danger of eye damage is related to holes in the ozone. Thus we know that the wavelengths that do damage must be more likely to come through when there is a hole.

Hope that helps!

-t

[kjjida9797]

Hi, Tommy.

I just want to make sure how A contradicts the passage. We are given no information from the passage about the state of ozone layer staying intact except that the layer filters some wavelengths out and let others pass through.

I though this cannot be correct because it doesn't have to be true. We are only told that some injurious wavelength, which was filtered when the layer was intact, passes through through the hole in the layers. But there might be other wavelengths contributing to eye damages that had always been able to pass the layer regardless of holes in which case A fails. And this also doesn't contradict the information from the passage.

So I don't think that A contradicts the passage.

[jonathangroffman]

Hi,
I'm stuck between A and E on this one.

For A, it seems like it's saying that the ozone filters out the eye damaging wavelengths when it is intact. So where it's not intact (the holes) there is no filtration - or is that an extra assumption that we can't logically make?

E, kind of seems to be saying that same thing about the holes.

If someone could help me clarify that would be great, thanks!

[maryadkins]

I would eliminate (A) because it's too extreme. We don't know that "ALL" wavelengths of sunlight that can cause damage are filtered by the ozone layer, nor would we need to infer this for there to be danger where it has holes. For there to be danger where there are holes, which we're told, only (E) has to be true, that the ozone blocks out SOME dangerous light.

In general, be very wary of extreme language in answer choices to Inference questions.

[Youngstar2028]

Sunlight in answer choice E threw me off the grid
I thought sunlight and light should not be interchanged in the statement.
I was dead wrong! But now I know.