#12 - Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in

[Shannon Parker]

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?

Sort of, but not directly. The premise concludes that dioxin is not likely the cause of the reproductive issues because, states the fish recover quickly in the event of a mill shutdown, and dioxin takes a long time to decompose. The author is assuming that because the dioxin does not decompose, it would still be present in the event of a mill shut down. Therefore, if the dioxin were the cause of the of the problems, the problems would still exist because the dioxin would still be there. Since we know that the problems do not continue when the mill shuts down, the author concludes that dioxin cannot be the cause. We are asked to find the answer choice that most weakens this argument. Since the author's conclusion rests on the assumption that the dioxin is still present in the event of a mill shut down, an answer choice that states that the dioxin is no longer present, for example because it has been washed further downstream, fits our expectation perfectly. Thus, C is the correct answer.

Hope this clears it up.

[lathlee]

I am still confused but i think it is due to my inability to comprehend the whole picture; I will read out loud you guys' explanation several times and try to understand; then i will let you guy know; thank you so much for trying to help me out.

[lathlee]

Does this work and am I on the right track? (As you know from the record, i modified this statement many times already)

If Normal river currents move dioxin far downstream in only a few hours (answer choice C), then as a consequence, then a fish in a question would be in the clean water more often than prior to answer choice c occurred. (Fish in abnormalities live around immediately down from the source of Dioxin). of course during that brief moment of staying in "Immediately below the Mills," the dioxin contained water STILL could have caused or made some causing impact of fish abnormalities. Since it is brief staying with dioxin dissolves very slowly, no one will exactly know whether dioxin caused or not caused Fish Abnormalities especially due to occasional shutdowns of causing sources (scant supporting evidence for both sides, caused vs not caused, with an added twist of infrequent causing timing) ; aka: we are left with a state, where dioxin probably did or probably didn't cause, fish abnormalities even if the dioxin is dissolved (That we don't know which scenario occurred).However, at this point, we also know that fishes recover relatively quickly when mills shut down (the causing reason is gone) . therefore, the conclusion of the question stem, Dixon probably isn't the cause of abnormalities, becomes less valid and less stronger since we are now left with evidence that could support an edition that if that normal river currents move dioxin in a rather quick manner (which also serve the function allowing us to judge we don't know which is the causing mechanism) , but fishes recoveres Hormone imbalances in a DIOXIN Free environment where only one aspect has changed (the dioxin being gone vs not gone) so since the currents allow the fishes to be in CLEAN WATER MORE OFTEN than prior to answering choice C) occurs, (we have a situation where being in Dioxin Free envionrment state results in hormon recovery for those fishes) it is more LIKELY (But not by much since dioxin stayed with the fishes in a question breifely) that Dioxin caused the hormone imbalances, making the constrasting situation more obvious.

To weaken conclusion involving cause and effect, Powerscore, Prep bible teaches us there are 5 types/ways:
this falls in the type of 2) causing reason didn't occur but results still occurred anyways.
answer choice C) allows us to NOT Complete delete causing reason to be gone but answer choice C) allows us the CAUSE to occur fewer times but the results still occurred anyways. Therefore weakens the conclusion but not that much.

Am i thinking too much ?

[Daniel Stern]

Lath:

I didn't quite follow the long paragraph in the middle of your post, but I think ultimately you are on the right track.

The stimulus author concludes the dioxins probably do not cause the hormone imbalance, because when the mill shuts down briefly, the fish hormones recover, but the dioxins haven't decomposed. The author is assuming the dioxins are still there, immediately downstream of the mill where the fish that we're studying are.

Answer C provides a new fact that takes the dioxins away during those mill shutdowns: the river currents. This undermine's the author's conclusion because it accounts for the recovery of the fish during the mill shutdowns: even though the dioxins haven't decomposed, they've been flushed away further downstream by the mill currents.

So with C being true, it could be the dioxins causing the fish hormone problems, and the author's conclusion is weakened.

The author's conclusion being framed in the negative -- the dioxins are not the cause -- a little tougher to puzzle out, but I think you've got it.

I hope that helps.

Best,
Dan

[lathlee]

Hi. All is good; i Just want to make it sure about one point about weaken causing and effect relationship :

To weaken conclusion involving cause and effect, Powerscore, Prep bible teaches us there are 5 types/ways:
this falls in the type of 2) causing reason didn't occur but results still occurred anyways.
answer choice C) allows us to NOT Complete delete causing reason to be gone but answer choice C) allows us the CAUSE to occur fewer times but the results still occurred anyways. Therefore weakens the conclusion but not that much.

[James Finch]

Hi Lathlee,

This particular question is a bit different from the normal Weaken question types, in that we are asked to weaken a conclusion that is attempting to deny a causal relationship. Thus logically we are being asked to strengthen the causal relationship that the conclusion is trying to deny. In this case, this would mean strengthening the link between dioxin from the paper mills causing altered hormone concentration in fish. Answer choice (C) does this by neutralizing the evidence about mill shutdowns, strengthening the linkage between their operation and the hormone concentrations in the fish.

Hope this helps!

[lathlee]

the last explanation provided me Me a good revelation. thank you very much

[lathlee]

I disagree with Dave on this regards, I don't think October 1994, Section 1, #24: Vinland Map Titanium Ink is the most difficult LR Q of all time, I think this is the more difficult to get correctly especially D) is so persuasively attractive.

[lrogue]

i feel like D is wrong because it is already addressed in the stimulus.

the stimulus says that the fish recovered quickly and then D says that they didnt recover rapidly.

its like a kid saying, "you're ugly" and then the other kid replies, "No, you're ugly."

am i write?

[James Finch]

Hi L.Rogue,

(D) is actually referencing a separate issue of whether the fish are able to physically recover from the hormonal changes when the mills' shutdown not just their hormonal levels. The big giveaway that this isn't the correct answer is that we're told this is only "some" of the fish, not the fish as a whole (which is the scope of the stimulus) so it doesn't actually mean much. "Some" could mean anywhere from a couple to almost all of the fish. Contrast this to (C), which weakens our conclusion by directly attacking on of its premises: that the dioxin decomposes slowly in the environment. That only matters if it is in the environment, and if the river washes it downstream, then it would stop affecting the fish pretty quickly once a mill shutdown and makes it likelier that dioxin is the cause of the fish's reproductive issues.

Hope this clears things up!