Q10 - The more sunlight our planet reflects back into space

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Reflecting sunlight tends to cool the Earth's atmosphere. Snow/ice reflect more light than oceans/land. The author then concludes that more snow/ice will tend to decrease global temperatures.

Answer Anticipation:
The author brings up one factor affecting global temperatures - sunlight reflected. However, whenever one factor is brought up, we should always be on the lookout for other factors. Maybe something else about land/oceans will outweight the amount of sunlight reflected. In order to strengthen this question, we want to rule that possibility out.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The argument cares about what happens when there is vs. isn't snow, not how the snow comes to be in the first place.

(B) Opposite. If anything, this weakens the argument by stating there could be other factors. We need an answer that says there aren't other factors or, if there are, those factors also align with snow/ice cooling the planet.

(C) Correct. I probably wouldn't have picked this on the first pass, instead leaving it to come back to. If oceans/land heat the earth, that removes a factor that could cut in favor of oceans/land lowering the temperature instead of snow/ice.

(D) Out of scope. It only matters what happens once the sunlight strikes the ground.

(E) Out of scope. The comparison between light and dark soil doesn't impact the comparison between snow/ice and land/oceans.

Takeaway/Pattern: For strengthen and weaken questions, it's important to leave yourself open to answers that aren't exactly what you predicted. Leave anything on the table that's even close!

#officialexplanation

[SamanthaW170]

While your explanation for this question makes sense in terms of identifying a strengthener answer choice as one that defends the argument from a particular attack, I'm a little bit confused by your specific explanation of why (C) is the answer.

The argument states that "Snow and ice reflect much more sunlight back into space than do ocean water or land without snow cover." Since this is a given premise, we can accept the truth of this statement - so we know that snow and ice would do a better job at cooling the atmosphere than water/land.

What we don't know about the argument is whether other factors besides sunlight reflected might affect atmospheric temperature (maybe the temperature won't cool because smog traps the sunlight that is reflected?); or perhaps whether more snow/ice vs. water/land cover is enough to actually affect temperatures (maybe more light is reflected by snow/ice, but temperatures wouldn't change unless there was a certain ratio of snow/ice:water/land?).

Answer (C) seems to simply tell us that the above-referenced premise is correct - and even more extreme: water/land actually heat the atmosphere. Premise boosters can certainly be strengtheners, but I don't see how this "removes a factor that could cut in favor of oceans/land lowering the temperature instead of snow/ice," since that is - according to the premise - not possible at all?

Thanks so much for helping me out! I picked (D) out of desperation because I thought it could be defending against other factors working concurrently to heat the earth.

[SamanthaW170]

I'm a little confused by your explanation of why (C) is correct. I get that with a strengthen question we are looking for statements that defend the argument from particular attacks that could undermine it...but I don't see from your explanation how (C) is doing that.

The argument states in a premise - so we can accept it as true - that "Snow and ice reflect more sunlight than do ocean water or land without snow cover." (C) is a premise booster - making this statement even more extreme: not only do ocean water and land not reflect as much light, they actually heat the atmosphere. Cool, since strengthener answers can definitely be premise boosters.

However, I don't see (C) as a defender of the argument, one that "removes a factor that could cut in favor of oceans/land lowering the temperature instead of snow/ice," since - according to the aforementioned premise - such a situation is not possible at all?

Thanks!!

[KayM793]

Here's my two cents---


Since we know that ocean water and land heated by sunlight in turn warms Earth's atmosphere, if they are not covered by ice and snow, they will reflect less, warming Earth's atmosphere. But if they are covered more in ice and snow, they will reflect more, thus cooling the atmosphere.

[ohthatpatrick]

I agree with you and the previous poster. I wouldn't interpret (C) as a defender type answer. I think Matt arbitrarily chose to explain it that way since his mind was already thinking of objections, such as, "What if other factors, besides sun reflective properties, make water and land a cooler influence on the atmosphere than is ice and snow?"

This is one of those rare correct answers to Strengthen / Weaken that I would classify as just adding independent evidence for the conclusion.

Independent of any reasoning, (C) sounds like a way to plausibly support the Conclusion.

What I hate about it is that it isn't comparative. I don't like answers that aren't comparative, when we're judging a comparative conclusion.

Maybe ice and snow that gets heated by sunlight ALSO in turn warm Earth's atmosphere.

It's a really annoying correct answer, in my mind. I think (D) might potentially weaken, since surfaces that reflect more sunlight would make sunlight pass through the atmosphere TWICE (coming in and going out).

(B) seems to Weaken, and (A) and (E) are just totally irrelevant.

So it's one of those times where you're picking a correct answer, thinking, "I don't like this .. but I guess it does SOMETHING, while the others do nothing or go the wrong way" (or on RC / Inference-support, "technically it has SOME support, and the other answers have no support or negative support")

[ohthatpatrick]

I hate this question.

Think about the reasoning this way:
the more impressive your GPA is, the more impressive your law school app is.

Rahar has a more impressive GPA than Bob. So, Rahar’s law school app is more impressive.

We’d object that there might be other things that can also impact how impressive your law school app is, so we’re not ready to hand the title to Rahar yet.

Similarly, we get that snow/ice beat ocean/land in terms of reflecting light back into space, but there could be other things that impact the temperature of the global atmosphere, so we can’t just hand the title to snow/ice yet.

(D) sounds like it’s saying, “the category that snow/ice wins is the most significant category”

and

(C) is saying “ocean/land do this other thing that hurts their chances of winning even more”

I agree that saying “the factor that affects atmospheric heat the most is the same one that we told you in the evidence is an advantage in favor of snow/ice” seems to strengthen.

However, saying “most of the atmosphere’s heat is derived from sunlight passing through it” is different from saying “the #1 thing affects atmospheric temperature is sunlight passing through it”.

In a big room, the space heater may be where the room’s heat is largely derived from, but it may be the open windows that have the #1 effect on the temperature of the room.

Also, (D) is saying that most of the atmosphere’s heat is derived from sunlight passing through it, whereas the evidence is saying snow/ice are superior in terms of how much light they reflect back into space. Those are meaningfully different.

Sunlight isn’t just hitting the Earth and either bouncing back / not bouncing back. There are so many angles off which sunlight can bounce, that sunlight will be passing through the atmosphere at all possible angles.

So, yes, most of atmospheric heat comes from sunlight bouncing all around, but the passing of sunlight back into space is a pretty small fraction of the sunlight passing through the atmosphere.

Thus, the advantage that snow/ice has over land/ocean in terms of better reflecting sunlight into space isn’t necessarily having a huge impact on the amount of sunlight passing through the atmosphere.

[abrenza123]

I was really stuck between C and D but ultimately chose D because like you said, it seems to confirm what was stated in the evidence.

I understand that saying "the atmosphere derives most of its heat" is different than the temperature of the atmosphere, but i took issues w/ C because I thought it was vague as well:

Maybe I am mincing words but in C I wasn't sure if land meant land without snow cover, so we were to use it as a strengthener I thought that part of the answer was ambiguous and would at best do nothing and at worst possibly contradict.

also, couldn't "warm the atmosphere" also be conflated as "deriving heat" or being a source of heat?

For tricky questions like this, is are there any language cues or methods to use in order to help decipher a correct answer?

[ohthatpatrick]

A few things:

I was really stuck between C and D but ultimately chose D because like you said, it seems to confirm what was stated in the evidence.

That's not the job of a strengthener, unless it's a (very rare) question in which the evidence was some survey or sample and the answer makes us feel better about trusting it.

We're certainly never trying to confirm quantitative or scientific sounding facts. I think you meant "as I said, it elevates the importance of the evidence".

But I also said it kinda doesn't.
How much sunlight passes through atmosphere ≠ how much sunlight reflects back into space.

If a ray of sunlight comes into Earth and gets absorbed by the ocean / bare land, then that represents LESS sunlight passing through the atmosphere then when a ray of sunlight comes into Earth and reflects back into space. For some rays of light, getting bounced back into space will mean TWO trips passing through the atmosphere (once in, once out), so you could almost think of (D) as having a confusing weakening aspect to it.

also, couldn't "warm the atmosphere" also be conflated as "deriving heat" or being a source of heat?


No, "to warm" something will always mean "to increase its temperature" and never mean "to derive heat, take away heat from something".


I wasn't sure if land meant land without snow cover, so we were to use it as a strengthener I thought that part of the answer was ambiguous and would at best do nothing and at worst possibly contradict.

Land could be covered with snow or bare. Which do you think would be heated more by sunlight: bare land or snow-covered land?

Common sense tells us bare land would be heated more, as well as the fact that we are told in this stimulus that snow reflects more sunlight back than does bare land. So if we know that land heated by sunlight warms the atmosphere, and if we know that bare land would be heated more by sunlight than would snow-covered land, then (C) is communicating that bare land, in this regard, warms Earth's atmosphere more than snow covered land does.

Hope this helps.

[VidaH846]

I wonder that, what if A says “Low atmospheric temperatures lead to the formation of clouds that result in snow”instead(necessary —sufficient),would A be a perfect choice for this strengthen argument?