In 1980 there was growing concern that the protective ozone layer over the Antarctic might be decreasing and thereby ...
JeromeJune 28, 2020
Why not E?
Since answer (E) states that ozone was still present, we could conclude that the ozone was still harming the sea animals and that the concern for the wellbeing of the sea animals were still warranted? I thought this might be reasonable enough to weaken the premise.
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
(E) "even where the amount of atmospheric ozone is normal, some ultraviolet light reaches the Earth's surface"
The problem with (E) is that we do not know that the "some" amount of UV light mentioned is enough to damage polar marine life. The passage says there is a concern that polar marine life would be damaged when the ozone layer decreases enough to allow for "so much" UV light to reach Earth. How do we know that the unspecified amount of "some" light in (E) is enough to be considered "so much" that it could cause damage? We don't. There very well may be some amount of UV light that is always let in but does not surpass the threshold to cause damage. Therefore, we do not have enough information to choose (E) without making unwarranted assumptions.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
