#12 - Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in

[Steve Stein]

Hi Kp13,

Thanks for your response. Answer choice A provides that "some" of the studies were funded by paper manufacturers. First, note that "some" is a very vague term--it means "one or more." Second, the fact that at least one such study was funded by paper manufacturers does not by itself weaken the general credibility of the results. This is known as a source attack, which is a logically flawed attack on the source, rather than on the merits of the case.

Answer choice C provides that there is a strong current, which would explain how the fish could recover quickly during shutdowns--the stimulus says that it takes a while for dioxin to decompose in the environment; if currents are washing this durable dioxin downstream, that would give the local fish access to some clean water (from upstream) during temporary shutdowns.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[Kp13]

Thanks Steve!
I think it has become clearer now.

[eober]

Hi,

I am confused why answer choice C weakens the argument. Why is the amount of time important in this case?

Thanks for the clarification!

[David Boyle]

Hi,

I am confused why answer choice C weakens the argument. Why is the amount of time important in this case?

Thanks for the clarification!

Hello eober,

This is sort of a difficult question, but: time may be important because if dioxin is damaging, but decomposes slowly, that would mean that fish should suffer from all the dioxin still around. But, as the stimulus notes, the fish seem to recover when there's a mill shutdown.
However, answer C gives a reason for that: the dioxin gets swept away by the river, so when the mill is shut down and no more dioxin is being produced, the water is clean. However, most of the time, the mill is on, and produces dioxin all the time, so the water sweeping away dioxin isn't helpful, since more dioxin keeps getting produced, and can hurt the fish.
Thus, the argument that "dioxin doesn't hurt fish" is weakened.

Hope this helps,
David

[eober]

Hi,

Thank you for your response!

I am not sure if I udnerstand answer choice C though. If river currents carry the dioxin in the river wouldn't that mean dioxin is not effecting the fish?

[David Boyle]

Hi,

Thank you for your response!

I am not sure if I udnerstand answer choice C though. If river currents carry the dioxin in the river wouldn't that mean dioxin is not effecting the fish?

Hello,

It may at least mean it is affecting them less.

[nlittle]

OMG I fell asleep during a practice test and had a terrible dream...!

Law Services expected me to solve a quantum mechanics problem, read a Charles Dickens novel and end world hunger while maintaining an average of 1:20 per question on my LR section! I woke up and then realized that it was worse than I even dreamed... a FISH problem...

I'm betting those that skipped this problem and circled back at the end did better overall on the section.

[lathlee]

Hi. I am just making it sure after printed off and read powerscore's explanation several times.

so answer choice C) says " Normal rivers..... in a few hours, " according to the Powerscore's ADMINISTRATOR explanation, basically says river currents carry the dioxin rather quickly to far downstream. but this is confusing part to me... In a few hours = quickly? even though I do not know the size of the river? If the river in question stem is super big, carrying far downstream in a few hours .. then i can analyze it as currents can do that.

but we do not know the size of the river.. all we know.. the size of river can be a super small then carrying the dioxin far downstream in a few hours means current's speed can be super slow though. in that case, answer choice C) doesn't really establish Dioxin is the cause for hormone imbalance.

[Malila Robinson]

Hi Lathlee,
There are a few time sensitive words in here. The stimulus notes that the reproductive abnormalities are found in fish immediately downstream of the paper mills. The stimulus also notes that dioxin, which can alter hormones in fish, is released daily by these paper mills. But then the argument attempts to take dioxin off the table as the cause of the reproductive abnormalities based on the argument that although dioxin decomposes very slowly, the fish that are directly downstream of the mills recover hormone concentrations relatively quickly during mill shutdowns.

If (C) is true then that would remove the dioxin from the area immediately downstream and would flush it further downstream, where it might then slowly decompose. The point though, is that the water immediately downstream would not be getting the daily dose of dioxin from the mills during a shutdown and the currents would push the old dioxin further away. This would give the fish a chance to recover during the shut downs.

-Malila

[lathlee]

Hi. Thank you so much for the answer but i just want to claify one point:
but this is confusing part to me... In a few hours = quickly in the answer choice C context right?