#14 - In 1980 there was growing concern that the protective

[biskam]

is the reason D is correct because it shows that the ozone layers could be unconstant (could've increased) while B is incorrect because seasonality differences could still mean that the overall numerical numbers re ozone could still be constant?

thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

Exactly right, biskam! If the ozone moves around, getting thinner in some places and thicker in others, then information about total ozone would not really help the government in response to a concern about thin or depleted ozone at the poles. Answer D does nothing to weaken the FACT about the total ozone, but it does weaken the RELEVANCE of that claim. Answer B, meanwhile, does nothing to either that fact or its relevance.

Well done! Keep it up!

[biskam]

Thank you! These #% questions are tough, but have to keep trying

[jona_zx]

Got it right but im unsure what the actual point of the gov officials is. Do they mean that since the global ozone is constant, this shows that it is not true that the ozone in the pole is lowering. Or do they mean that even if the ozone has lowered in the pole, this is irrelevant since the global total is constant and this is what matters.