Pg.292 question 4

[yongjook]

Hi,

I agree B-E strengthens the argument, but I'm confused why answer choice A would not strengthen the argument.

The premise states that atmospheric ozone blocks UV-B and the radiation can damages genes. If atmospheric ozone blocks UV-B and the UV-B is the only type that can damages genes, it would make sense for the declining amphibian population because the depletion of the ozone layer is letting the UV-B through. But then again this doesn't necessary talk about the decline of the ozone layer or the decline of amphibian population.

Could you reiterate or explain further into this matter?

I just don't think the fact that UV-B is the only damainf type of radiation blocked by ozone is not irrelevant.

Thank you,
J

[David Boyle]

Hi,

I agree B-E strengthens the argument, but I'm confused why answer choice A would not strengthen the argument.

The premise states that atmospheric ozone blocks UV-B and the radiation can damages genes. If atmospheric ozone blocks UV-B and the UV-B is the only type that can damages genes, it would make sense for the declining amphibian population because the depletion of the ozone layer is letting the UV-B through. But then again this doesn't necessary talk about the decline of the ozone layer or the decline of amphibian population.

Could you reiterate or explain further into this matter?

I just don't think the fact that UV-B is the only damainf type of radiation blocked by ozone is not irrelevant.

Thank you,
J

Hello yongjook,

Answer A doesn't give much we don't know already. We already know that UVB damages genes, so if it's the only type of radiation that does that, does that really make a difference?
What we need is some sort of linkage to the declining population, which is what the other answer choices give, or in the case of answer D, it shows that there isn't an alternate cause (lack of habitat).

Hope this helps,
David