Nature constantly adjusts the atmospheric carbon level. An increase in the level causes the atmosphere to hold more h...
ShannonOh22August 5, 2019
This one's a doozy...
So E looked appealing as the correct answer to this question at first, but when I read the second part of that answer choice, I changed my mind...it states "The natural adjustment process, which occurs over millions of years, allows wide-fluctuations in the carbon level in the short term"...this doesn't weaken the argument in the passage at all. If anything, this reaffirms that nature has it "under control", and that the increase in carbon in the atmosphere caused by fossil fuel burning and the subsequent emissions are FINE, because nature will self-correct and even everything out. What E says to me is "don't worry about it, the increases may look alarming because they are so drastic, but this is very common and typical of nature's normal adjustment process"...
Perhaps the use of the phrases "wide fluctuations" and "short term" is what has me confused. The passage states that a "sustained increase" would be a threat to human life. E doesn't mention a sustained threat at all - essentially, it justifies the environmentalists' care-free approach, stating that fluctuation is normal, and therefore any rise will NOT be long-term (sustained).
Please help!
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The author describes a natural carbon cycle in support of the conclusion that environmentalists worry needlessly as burning fossil fuels is unlikely to raise atmospheric carbon to a dangerous level because of this continuous adjustment.
Which of the following weakens the argument?
(E) says "natural adjustment process occurs over millions of years and allows wide fluctuations in the carbon level in the short term." It means that not only it takes millions of years for nature to mitigate the impact of all the fossil fuel emissions, but the process also allows for "wide fluctuations in the carbon level in the short term." Since we cannot say how wide these fluctuations are, we cannot be certain that carbon would never reach dangerous levels as the author assumes. The carbon levels would normalize over the millions of years, but it is plausible for carbon to reach dangerous levels in the short term, thus weakening the conclusion that environmentalists' concerns are unwarranted.
