#24 - Concept Reference, Strengthen, Subject Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[Rita]

Hi,

I classified this as a strengthen question about a specific concept (their conclusions on the long-term effects of CFCs). I ruled out answer A based on habits from logical reasoning - if a cause is suspected and then removed, and the effect still continues to grow, then it's not clear whether the cause was correctly identified. I recognized that they predicted that "the depletion of the ozone layer would continue for years, if not decades, even if the production and use of CFCs were to cease immediately", but I wasn't sure that hole in the ozone layer continuing to grow strengthened their conclusion that the cause of the hole was CFCs. So, I chose D, because it seemed that if many of their critics came to back their views, that would strengthen their hypothesis and conclusion.

Is the idea here that with critical reading passages, there isn't a need to look for potential logical flaws in the same way as in logical reasoning? Or is there another method you would suggest for getting these right?

Thanks,
Rita

[Adam Tyson]

Actually, Rita, the same logical rules apply in RC. In this case, you were right on the money up to a point. The place where you went off course was in the connection between "the depletion of the ozone layer would continue for years, if not decades, even if the production and use of CFCs were to cease immediately" and answer A, the ozone hole continuing to grow. The scientists were saying that the CFCs linger in the atmosphere and continue to have their effect for a long time after you stop putting them up there. In other words, the cause stays around a long time after you stop adding to it.

Answer A strengthens that claim by confirming that the cause (CFCs in the atmosphere) and the effect (depleting ozone) continue for a long while after you stop putting new CFCs into the atmosphere. It's not an example of the effect without the cause, but an example of an effect with the cause. The cause doesn't go away when you stop adding to it. That's exactly what the scientists told us.

I get what you like about answer D - it shows some support from other scientists, and that seems helpful. But it's a weaker answer for a couple reasons. First, those supportive scientists are agreeing that their methods were acceptable - that's not quite the same as saying they agree with all of their conclusions. Second, it doesn't add new helpful info to the claims about long term effects. What we really want there isn't agreement with old info, but additional evidence to corroborate the claim. If we didn't have an answer as good as, something like D might have to suffice, but A is head and shoulders above it and is thus the best answer.

Check again about those long term claims made by our scientists, and I think you'll see that A does indeed strengthen them.

Keep at it, you're doing great!