Weaken Question Problem Set; Page 256, #6

[btownsquee]

I did not choose E because it says that "hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases". Because of that, I assumed that since the lobsters were not harmed, the humans would not be harmed because those lobsters had not lived long enough to develop gill disease. What is wrong with my reasoning?

I thought B was correct because the sewage is getting rerouted offshore. I assumed this meant the open ocean. Since the lobsters live longer in the open ocean, they are getting harmed because of this proposal. Therefore I reasoned that this proposal is not pointless, it is harmful! Can you explain what is wrong with my reasoning here too?

Thank you! I think Weaken questions are my weak area.

[Charlie Melman]

Hi btown,

This is a tough question. The stimulus says that it doesn't matter if we protect the lobsters that are caught (and presumably eaten by humans) because the lobsters won't be harmed by the things we'd be protecting them from.

Answer choice (E) says, "Who cares if the lobsters don't live long enough to be harmed by gill diseases. Humans can become ill when they eat lobsters with those diseases." Note that you don't have to be harmed by a disease in order to pass it on to others. Men can asymptomatically carry HPV and pass it to women, who then are harmed.

Answer choice (B) is irrelevant. You make the point that rerouting sewage offshore would be harmful to lobsters in the open ocean. Assuming that the lobsters in the open ocean live sufficiently long to be harmed by gill diseases (a big "if," considering that "hardly any lobsters [meaning any lobsters at all] live long enough to be harmed by those diseases"), the proposal would be even more pointless. It wouldn't help anything. A proposal can be pointless and hurtful at the same time.

Hope this helps!