#23 - Geologist: The dominant view that petroleum formed

[Adam Tyson]

My favorite way to think about this question is to compare it to finding a fly in your soup. Let me explain:

The author thinks that finding biomarkers in petroleum means that petroleum is made from living stuff rather than from deep carbon.

To weaken that, we need to say that the biomarkers are not indicative of what the petroleum is made of. It's extra. To me, that's like finding a fly in my soup - it doesn't prove that my soup is made of bugs! My soup could still be just vegetables and broth, and a fly happened to get in it somehow. Likewise, the biomarkers could just be some stuff that happened to be in the carbon that formed the petroleum, and not be the main thing that the petroleum is made of.

Goingslow - I don't see the biomarkers as evidence that deep carbon is the source. I think your first suggestion is the correct one.

supjeremyklein - good analysis, well done, and thanks for the assist!

[goingslow]

Thanks very much Adam!

[CristinaCP]

Hi Powerscore!

I confidently chose E first. I went into the ACs thinking that I needed to find something which reconciled the presence of biomarkers with the carbon deposit theory, saw E, and thought "Great! Maybe the biomarkers are from the fossilized remains of plants.” It does strengthen the accepted hypothesis, but it also shows that deep carbon deposits could have had biomarkers.

So I see how E could be right, but I think it's wrong because it directly conflicts with the new hypothesis for two reasons. Could you help me determine if I'm eliminating E for the right reasons?

1. The new theory is saying that the petroleum formed from carbon deposits that date from earth's formation, long before plants existed, so AC E is out of scope.
2. E suggests that living material turned into carbon deposits which turned into petroleum, but the renegade scientists hold that petroleum was NOT formed by living material. So E actually further refutes the renegade scientists' specific argument. Is that also a good reason to eliminate E?

[EmilyOwens]

Hi Powerscore!

I confidently chose E first. I went into the ACs thinking that I needed to find something which reconciled the presence of biomarkers with the carbon deposit theory, saw E, and thought "Great! Maybe the biomarkers are from the fossilized remains of plants.” It does strengthen the accepted hypothesis, but it also shows that deep carbon deposits could have had biomarkers.

So I see how E could be right, but I think it's wrong because it directly conflicts with the new hypothesis for two reasons. Could you help me determine if I'm eliminating E for the right reasons?

1. The new theory is saying that the petroleum formed from carbon deposits that date from earth's formation, long before plants existed, so AC E is out of scope.
2. E suggests that living material turned into carbon deposits which turned into petroleum, but the renegade scientists hold that petroleum was NOT formed by living material. So E actually further refutes the renegade scientists' specific argument. Is that also a good reason to eliminate E?

Hi Cristina,

For this question, we want to weaken the geologist’s argument, which is that some scientist’s theory that petroleum forms from deep carbon deposits, not living material, is inaccurate. In other words, the geologist believes the primary view that petroleum formed from the fossilized remains of plants and animals. They defend this by saying there are biomarkers in petroleum. According to the question stem, our job is not to support that view, but to poke holes in it. We can do so by directly strengthening the other argument presented or by providing other reasons that explain why living organisms would be in the petroleum.

You are correct in the fact that we can eliminate A and C for being out of scope/irrelevant. I believe the second point you make is exactly what I want to emphasize: Answer choice (E) strengthens the argument we are trying to weaken.

You are on the right track here. I hope this helps to further clarify!