Q14 - In 1980 there was growing

[forps]

I feel like (B) is the answer since it partially attack that the statistic.. Can anyone explain why (d) is the correct answer and not (b)?

Thanks in advance

[demetri.blaisdell]

From your question, it looks like you are actually asking about Q14 from Section 4. I am moving your post accordingly. Let me know if you actually would like Q14 from Section 2.

This question asks us to weaken the argument put forward by the government officials. So the first step is to be clear about what that argument is. The core of their argument is:

Global ozone levels constant → Hole in Antarctic ozone not a problem

Does this sound a little fishy to you? If the United States GDP is increasing, does that mean that we don’t have to worry about poverty in one particular location? (D) tells us that polar ozone has somehow shifted to other places. So, while the premise that global levels are constant is true, the conclusion that the Antarctic ozone hole is not a problem cannot be properly drawn. This is exactly what we’re looking for in a weaken answer: something that accepts the validity of the premise, but calls in to question our ability to draw the conclusion.

(A) is out of scope. We are concerned with what is going on in Antarctica rather than global plant and animal life.

(B) is the opposite of what we want. This would actually strengthen the government’s argument. If these changes are seasonal rather than constant, then they are less likely to be a problem. Another way to look at (B) is that it actually changes the premise. Before we read (B) we were concerned with how much ozone we had over Antarctica. (B) introduces a new idea that ozone levels might be seasonal. It is not clear how this new information would fit in to the government’s argument about global levels remaining constant (we would have to change the government’s premise in order to make this strengthen or weaken their argument). We aren’t looking for an answer choice that changes the premise.

(C) is also out of scope. When the problem became apparent or worthy of concern has no bearing on whether or not it is a problem.

(E) is yet another out of scope answer choice. We are concerned with the elevated levels of U/V radiation where there are holes in the ozone. The fact that some U/V rays get past the ozone layer elsewhere has nothing to do with the argument.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

[forps]

From your question, it looks like you are actually asking about Q14 from Section 4. I am moving your post accordingly. Let me know if you actually would like Q14 from Section 2.

This question asks us to weaken the argument put forward by the government officials. So the first step is to be clear about what that argument is. The core of their argument is:

Global ozone levels constant → Hole in Antarctic ozone not a problem

Does this sound a little fishy to you? If the United States GDP is increasing, does that mean that we don’t have to worry about poverty in one particular location? (D) tells us that polar ozone has somehow shifted to other places. So, while the premise that global levels are constant is true, the conclusion that the Antarctic ozone hole is not a problem cannot be properly drawn. This is exactly what we’re looking for in a weaken answer: something that accepts the validity of the premise, but calls in to question our ability to draw the conclusion.

(A) is out of scope. We are concerned with what is going on in Antarctica rather than global plant and animal life.

(B) is the opposite of what we want. This would actually strengthen the government’s argument. If these changes are seasonal rather than constant, then they are less likely to be a problem. Another way to look at (B) is that it actually changes the premise. Before we read (B) we were concerned with how much ozone we had over Antarctica. (B) introduces a new idea that ozone levels might be seasonal. It is not clear how this new information would fit in to the government’s argument about global levels remaining constant (we would have to change the government’s premise in order to make this strengthen or weaken their argument). We aren’t looking for an answer choice that changes the premise.

(C) is also out of scope. When the problem became apparent or worthy of concern has no bearing on whether or not it is a problem.

(E) is yet another out of scope answer choice. We are concerned with the elevated levels of U/V radiation where there are holes in the ozone. The fact that some U/V rays get past the ozone layer elsewhere has nothing to do with the argument.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Demetri

Thanks alot for your help. Now I understand the core of the question and reasoning behind the answer choices.

Thank you for correcting the section to 4 as well.

I really appreciate your help!

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Premise: Global atmospheric ozone levels have remained constant

Conclusion: The fact that the atmospheric protective ozone layer over the Antarctic is decreasing is not a point of concern.

Gaps: The author overlooks the possibility that perhaps the ozone layer has increased in other regions of the earth while decreasing in a corresponding size over the Antarctica, to the point of endangering polar marine life.

A) Irrelevant. You’d have to make assumptions about the ozone layer for this to be a contender.
B) Hmm, not exactly sure how this affects the argument, keep for now.
C) Completely irrelevant, get this out.
D) This corresponds nicely with the gap we identified, keep for now.
E) Ok cool, but we don’t know if the atmospheric ozone is normal, only that it’s constant. Even if we conceded that it was normal, just because some ultraviolet radiation reaches the earth surface, we cannot say unequivocally that it is endangering polar marine life.

We're down to (B) and (D)

At second glance (B) doesn't look so good. First of all, we're given no info as to the magnitude of the decrease when it occurs and if it's enough to for ultraviolet radition to pass through and threaten the lives of polar marine life. Secondly, this actually lends credence to the government officials argument by undermining the gravity of the threat posed by the decreasing ozone layer by suggesting that the decrease is cyclical and not constant.

(D) If the ozone layer covering the polar caps is decreasing and increasing in corresponding size in other regions then perhaps the polar marine life is in danger. Pick it and move on.

(B) would be tempting if you misidentify the core like I did the first time I attempted this question, however upon blind review I caught my error.

Initially I thought the core was: Global ozone layers has reamined contant. Therefore the ozone layer covering Antartica is not decreasing. That is not the core. "Dismissed these concerns" is a referential phrase that refers to the concerns presented by a decreasing ozone layer (polar marine life being damaged). The government has conceded that the ozone layer above antartica is decreasing but that it doesn't matter. Consequently the core is : Global ozone layer has remained constant. Therefore the decreasing ozone layer covering Antartica is not of grave concern. Hope this helps.