A study was designed to establish what effect, if any, the long–term operation of offshore oil rigs had on animal lif...
b_theoOctober 19, 2019
How can I eliminate A?
After reading the explanation I understand why B is correct, but I had originally ultimately gone with A. Is it wrong because it's too presumptuous? How do I avoid making the same mistake with other questions? I'm finding this section to be a bit difficult, so I'd really appreciate the help.
Thanks in advance!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
This is typically one of the harder sections for students to grasp at first, so don't be alarmed if you find it more challenging than other sections. The more you practice, the more you'll be able to identify the logic behind the questions.
In this case, (A) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. The passage discusses the comparison between sea-bottom communities near rigs and those away from rigs to determine that there are no differences and therefore no adverse effect from the rigs. (A) states that a drop in commercially important fish would indicate evidence of damage to sea-bottom communities. This does not weaken the passage's conclusion because (1) it does not have to do with rigs, (2) it does not differentiate between sea-bottom communities near rigs and away from rigs (therefore, all sea-bottom communities could be equally damaged and no additional harm would result in areas near rigs), and (3) it does not state that there is presently a drop in these fish, just that IF there was, it would indicate damage.
To avoid making the same mistake in the future, I would recommend taking a step back and asking yourself "Does this answer choice have a direct effect on the conclusion of the passage?" For it to be the correct answer for this type of question, the answer should not only have a direct effect, but it should present a direct challenge. It will impact the key variables of the passage. I would also recommend being weary of answer choices that use conditional language ("so a drop in catches of those fish WOULD be evidence of..."). This is equivalent to saying "If there was a drop in these fish, then we would have evidence that the communities were damaged." SInce the word "if" does not tell us that the sufficient condition is actually present, we cannot assume it is occuring. Remember, we are looking for an answer that will actively weaken the given argument, and it is typically easier to do this with concrete language.
Does this make sense? Please let us know if you have other questions or would like additional clarification!
b_theoOctober 27, 2019
@Skylar, Thank you so much for your explanation! It makes a lot more sense, and that strategy helps a lot too!
