Q11 - Nature constantly adjusts

[WaltGrace1983]

Confession: I hate the correct answer here. I feel like it's ambiguous and can be reasonably interpreted in two ways. Yet it's PT3 so I'll try not to get too upset about it. I'll explain later and break it down now.

The first big chunk of the stimulus is pretty much just a description of the process of "atmospheric carbon level adjustment" so it really isn't supposed to be something to remember too thoroughly. Here is what is important:

Opposing Point: Some environmentalists worry that burning fossil fuels may raise atmospheric carbon to a dangerous level

Sustained increase in burning fossil fuels would threaten human life
+
Nature constantly adjusts the atmospheric carbon level
→
Environmentalists should relax (no need to worry!)

The first thing I thought of was, "well what if burning the fossil fuels is NOT going to be something that it short-term but rather will be sustained." In addition, I was thinking that perhaps the act of burning fossil fuels will disturb the process of atmospheric adjustment. This was the main thing I was looking for.

(A) First of all, we are talking about human life. Second of all, we are talking about increasing the amount of carbon (by burning fossil fuels)! Thus, this answer choice is simply irrelevant.

(B) Eh. This is a very "meh" answer choice because it doesn't really add any contradicting evidence. It just says that breathing in excess carbon (aka, the carbon from the fossil fuels) may or may not have a negative effect on humans. Meh.

(C) We don't need to know more about carbon. We already know enough!

(D) This might actually strengthen the argument by showing how insignificant the fossil fuel burning is! After all, we assume that breathing isn't that big of a deal for the environment and, if that's the case, then why should we worry about something that will be 30x less potent than breathing?

(E) My first thought was, "uh oh. Something is not right here." This answer sounded attractive because it talked about the adjustment process - exactly what I wanted. Yet it does so in a way that seems to strengthen the argument! This is why I fought myself over this answer and I felt like there was something I failed to read correctly in the argument.

"The natural adjustment process...allows wide fluctuations in the carbon level in the short term." I thought, "great! No need to worry about the fossil fuels then because the adjustments will be made accordingly." However, this is (apparently) a misinterpretation of the word "allow."

"Allow" can mean either (1) to "give permission" or "permissibility"; or (2) "to make provision for." I was interpretting allow as (2) so I thought, "well the adjustments will account for these (potentially) wide fluctuations and will adjust accordingly." Well I guess I was wrong.

I was shocked that no one else had this same thought process. Maybe I am just having a bad day but I feel like this answer choice is simply no good and needed to be much clearer. Either way, it's PT3 as I said so I'll try not to think too much into it.

[sjlizj]

Today I am reviewing this test and seeing your post, and I see another explanation. Hopefully, it will help.

11. (E)
The author concludes that environmentalists are wrong to worry about increased carbon levels due to the burning of fossil fuels, because nature will continually adjust the carbon level. However, if, as choice (E) states, the adjustment process works very slowly, allowing wide short-term fluctuations in the carbon level, then it’s conceivable that dangerous or even lethal levels of carbon can build up, thus severely weakening the author’s argument: the environmentalists would be right to worry.
(A), (C) The author doesn’t debate the necessity of carbon, she merely argues that nature takes care of the carbon level by itself, and that the environmentalists should chill.
(B) Some may feel that this weakens the author’s concession in the last sentence, but even if it did, that sentence is basically a tangential point that has little todo with the logic of the argument, which deals with nature’s regulation of the carbon level. However, this probably doesn’t even affect the author’s concession, because that statement never said or implied that the threat to humans of increased carbon levels would come from breathing it in; it would likely be more indirect, along the lines of the processes described.
(D) This is an irrelevant comparison that has no bearing on the logic of the argument.

[laurenvarg]

I chose this answer begrudgingly for the same reason. I KNEW the others were wrong but interpreted allow the same way. I went with E and assume I missed something somewhere, but figured the question had me beat and moved on. Sloppy wording in my opinion.