#11 - Between 1976 and 1985, chemical wastes were dumped

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Evaluate the Argument Except—CE. The correct answer choice is (C)

The argument opens by presenting two premises: in the past chemical wastes were dumped into
Cod Bay, and today 3 percent of the bluefi n cod have deformed fi ns, which has caused consumers
to stop buying the cod. The Cod Bay fi shing representatives claim that since the chemicals that
were dumped are known to cause genetic mutations, those chemicals must have then caused the
deformities in the bluefi n cod. Accordingly, they believe the companies that dumped the chemicals
should be fi nancially liable for, presumptively, the fi shing industry’s loss in sales of bluefi n cod

The argument on the surface does not seem entirely unreasonable, although there are so many
unknown factors that could affect this situation that considerably more information is required before
the argument can be assessed.

The question stem is an unusual Evaluate the Argument Except question, where the four incorrect
answers help evaluate the validity of the argument and the one correct answer does not help evaluate
the validity of the argument. Remember to use the Variance Test when trying to confi rm the correct
answer or eliminate wrong answers.

Answer choice (A): This answer helps in evaluating the argument because it would help determine
if the 3 percent deformity rate is normal or unusual. If the incidence of fi n-deformity in non-exposed
cod is always about 3%, or is close, there is no reason to believe that the chemicals cause the
deformity. Therefore, even if consumers are wary of the fi sh because of its deformities, the chemical
companies are not necessarily responsible. On the other hand, if the incidence of fi n-deformity is
normally zero, the assertion that chemical dumping caused the problem is more plausible.

Remember that with answers requiring percentages, the Variance Test suggests that you use 0 and
100. If the answer to the question in this answer is 0, the representatives’ claim is strengthened; if the
answer to the question in this answer is 100, the representatives’ claim is severely weakened. Thus,
this answer passes the Variance Test, and in an Except question we know the answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This response is in the same vein as answer choice (A). Using the Variance Test,
if the answer to the question in this answer is 0, the representatives’ claim is strengthened; if the
answer to the question in this answer is 100, the representatives’ claim is severely weakened. Thus,
this answer passes the Variance Test, and in an Except question the answer is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Remember, this is an Except question, so
this answer does not help in evaluating the representatives’ claim.

In short, the argument is about what caused the deformed fi ns and who is liable for the losses
incurred from lost sales. This answer deals with an after-the-issue fact, and so it does not bear on the
representatives’ claim.

Using the Variance Test, try “yes” and “no” responses to the question posed in this answer choice. If
the answer to the question in this answer is Yes, the representatives’ claim is unaffected; if the answer
to the question in this answer is No, the representatives’ claim is unaffected. Thus, this answer fails
the Variance Test, and in an Except question we know the answer is correct.

Answer choice (D): If bluefi n cod in general are susceptible to deformity-causing illnesses, it is
possible that disease, rather than the chemicals, is the cause of the deformities in the Cod Bay
bluefi n. This response raises the possibility of an alternate cause, which is critical, so this response is
incorrect.

Using the Variance Test, if the answer to the question in this answer is No, the representatives’
claim is strengthened; if the answer to the question in this answer is Yes, the representatives’ claim
is weakened. Thus, this answer passes the Variance Test, and in an Except question the answer is
incorrect.

Answer choice (E): Read this answer closely: “Are there gene-altering pollutants present…other
than the chemical wastes that were dumped?” This answer is asking whether there could be some
other type of pollutant besides the dumped chemicals. If so, that would call into question whether the
dumped chemicals really did cause the deformities. Thus, this choice, like answer choice (D) raises
the possibility that there is an alternate cause for the deformities.

Using the Variance Test, if the answer to the question in this answer is No, the representatives’
claim is strengthened; if the answer to the question in this answer is Yes, the representatives’ claim
is weakened. Thus, this answer passes the Variance Test, and in an Except question the answer is
incorrect.

[Arindom]

Hi,

I referred to the explanation in the LR workbook and still have a few questions. Although, this ans choice deals with after the issue fact, using the Variance Test on ans choice C - if we say yes the consumption of these deformed fish caused health problems in the people who ate them - doesn't this strengthen the representatives' claim that wary consumers have as a result stopped buying the fish. If we answer no, it hasn't caused health problems - isn't the claim weakened?

Thanks.

- Arindom

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Arindom,

The thing that tripped you up here is identifying what, exactly, we are evaluating. This is the critical first step in an evaluate question, and here, we're evaluating the claim that the deformities were caused by the chemicals (NOT the claim that consumers stopped buying the fish). In that light, using the Variance Test on C, you'll find that you get a different result. Hope that helps!