#6 - Global Reference, Strengthen

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[tdsykes0]

Hello,
I need some help understanding question 6.
When I was originally going through the answer choices I determined that A would weaken the argument and E. I threw out B as well as a potential to weaken the argument. That left me with C and D and I ultimately chose D because I felt the answer added to the strength of the argument on lines 50-52.

However, the correct answer is B and the explanation in my PowerScore book just lists lines 47-52 but I still don't understand/see how B is the best answer.

Thanks

Tiffany

[Steve Stein]

Hi Tiffany,

Thanks for your question. In that one, we are looking for the answer choice that will most strengthens one of the rDNA opponents' arguments. In the final paragraph of the passage, the author discusses one of the major concerns of the rDNA opponents--that the lab-created microorganisms might escape from the lab and cause unknown issues (incurable disease, e.g.).

The author goes on (in lines 47-52) to to say that another serious concern of the rDNA opponents is "The effect of genetically altered microorganisms on the world's microbiological predator-prey relationship...Introducing a new species may disrupt or even destroy the existing ecosystem."

The correct answer choice B provides that those same lab-created microorganisms have no natural predators and a wide variety of prey, lending strength to the argument that there exists the potential for disruption (or destruction) of the existing microbiological ecosystem.

I hope that helps! Please let me know whether that clears this one up--thanks!

~Steve

[Sdaoud17]

Would D Also Support the Argument of rDNA ? I was between B and D.

The rest are easy to eliminate. But it would be hopeful to confirm :

A: Weakens it

C: talking about money.

E : will not survive weakens it

Thank you

[Steve Stein]

I believe that you are referring to PrepTest 8, not 46.

Choice B gives reason to be concerned--an all-consuming micro-organism that has no predators.

Choice D is so vague that it doesn't really figure into the argument, and it doesn't really provide any new information--basically, ecosystems are not permanent...sometimes they collapse.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[yrivers]

Hi,

Thanks for the explanations listed above. Can you explain why E and D are incorrect? I see clearly that B is the best answer, but want to ensure I understand why E and D are incorrect.

In particular for D, I read it to mean that even if there is no cause (genetically altered predators) there can be effect (collapse of ecosystem). So it means that predators may not be causing this. Would this weaken the opponents argument, and hence be doing the opposite of what the Q is asking?

Thank you!
Yaesul

[Francis O'Rourke]

Answer Choice (D) tells us that natural ecosystems are often liable to collapse and occasionally collapse on their own. The second statement sounds terrible, but has nothing to do with engineered microorganisms at all. As for the first half of choice (D), the opponents already stated that there is a possibility that the microorganisms could seriously alter natural ecosystems, so this information does not provide us with any additional information.

Answer choice (E) would weaken the opponents' argument that introduction of these new microorganisms would alter the natural ecosystem. If genetically engineered microorganisms only survive for a few hours outside the lab, that is a very short amount of time to "disrupt or destroy the existing ecosystem."

[cindyhylee87]

Hi,

I feel that answer choice (D) actually weaken the opponents' argument because if the ecosystem is not permanent and might collapse, then it's not all microorganism's problem to destroy the ecosystem.But from the explanation above, it doesn't mention what I thought. Does my analysis make sense? Or my understanding is not valid?

(A) has no effect to opponents' argument
(C) has no effect to opponents' argument
(D) is weakening the argument
(E) is weakening the argument

Thanks,
Cindy

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Cindy,

Let's use an analogy here. Suppose I believed the following: termites could destroy the foundations of this house. In this hypothetical, I am similar to the opponents of rDNA technology.

If I told you how cautious I was about introducing termites into the area, would you do anything to relieve my fears by telling me houses are impermanent structures that occasionally collapse? Well, now I know that my house isn't going to stand forever, but I could still justifiably be cautious about termites eating away at the foundations!

Knowing that the ecosystem is not going to last forever doesn't affect the argument that genetically altered microorganisms could disrupt or destroy the existing ecosystem. The opponents never said that it is entirely the fault of microorganisms if an ecosystem collapses. Rather, they are alleging that these organisms may disrupt or destroy it.

[cindyhylee87]

Hi Francis,

This makes perfect sense!

Cindy