A study was designed to establish what effect, if any, the long–term operation of offshore oil rigs had on animal lif...
nonameJanuary 11, 2022
"long term effects"
My question is about whether my logic is correct,
So the stimulus does introduce the idea of long-term effects, and because answer choice b allows for the possibility of time to create a difference in the study's observations, it circles back to this idea of long term effects and is thus directly challenging the angle of the study/stimulus and weakening the conclusion by bringing in the possibility that perhaps the long term effects were not observed because it takes time for the oil to settle on the ocean floor and thus have an opportunity to cause any effects it might onto the animal life on the bottom of the sea.
I didn't see any mention of 'long term effects' in any of the explanations or previously answered questions, so I wanted to ask if this line of logic is not wrong to follow?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
To answer your question, focusing on the "long term effects" aspect is not a mistake. However, keep in mind that oil depositing over time is not enough to make B correct. The fact is that the time elapsed allows the oil to spread far. If it took a zillion years for the oil to deposit, but the oil still deposited right down under the rig, B would be wrong. The fact that time allows the oil to spread is what allows B to weaken this argument. Hope this helps! If you need any further clarification just ask.
