(A) states that the argument "provides no explanation for developmental abnormalities that do not result from elevated hormonal activity." This does not weaken the argument because the passage states that "in reptiles abnormal development of these parts occurs only with elevated hormonal activity." Therefore, the argument is limited to only developmental abnormalities that result from elevated hormonal activity and the lack of explanation for others is irrelevant.
(B) states that the argument "fails to consider whether elevated hormonal activity can result from factors other than the presence of industrial by-products." This is correct because the passage only states that "some industrial by-products cause elevated hormonal activity." It does not clarify that there is no other factor that can also cause elevated hormonal activity. If such a factor did exist, we cannot conclude that the alligators' developmental abnormalities resulted from industrial by-products.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
aseikhon11August 27, 2020
"Hormones govern the development of certain body parts, and in reptiles abnormal development of these parts occurs ONLY with elevated hormonal activity."
this part of the passage is why I thought B was wrong, so i assumed it could be by something they ate rather than just the swamp itself
