Commentator: Many people argue that the release of

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members
Commentator: Many people argue that the release of
chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere is
harming humans by damaging the ozone layer,
thus allowing increased amounts of ultraviolet
radiation to reach Earth. But 300,000 years ago a
supernova greatly damaged the ozone layer, with
no significant effect on our earliest ancestors.
Because the supernova’s disruption was much
greater than the estimated effect of
chlorofluorocarbons today, there is no reason to
think that these chemicals in the atmosphere
harm humans in this way.
Which one of the following, if true, would most
seriously weaken the commentator’s argument?
(A) Extraterrestrial influences on the ozone layer
tend to occur less often than terrestrial ones.
(B) Natural events, such as the eruption of
volcanoes, continue to damage the ozone layer
today.
(C) Our earliest ancestors possessed genetic
characteristics making them more resistant than
we are to the harmful effects of ultraviolet
radiation.
(D) The ozone layer regenerates at a slow rate,
barring counteractive processes.
(E) Scientists have discovered that genetic changes
occurred in our ancestors during the period in
which the supernova affected Earth.

[spoiler]OA:C[/spoiler]
Life is Tom; I am Jerry ;)
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:59 am
conclusion: chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere are not harmful for the humans. to weaken we must show that the chemicals are harmful indeed

only C and E address the affect on humans.

E. says genetic changes did occur in the ancestors but we do not know if they were harmful. so doesnt weaken

C. correct, says today humans are more susceptible to harmful effects of UV radiations, the ancestors because of their genetic qualitities were resistant.
Last edited by scoobydooby on Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:34 am
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:1 members

by aj5105 » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:12 am
Nice question turbo.

[spoiler](C) [/spoiler]

Legendary Member
Posts: 1169
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:34 am
Thanked: 25 times
Followed by:1 members

by aj5105 » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:16 am
@scooby: Conclusion= CFCs in the atmosphere are not harmful for the humans.
scoobydooby wrote:conclusion: chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere are harmful for the humans. to weaken we must show that the chemicals are harmful indeed

only C and E address the affect on humans.

E. says genetic changes did occur in the ancestors but we do not know if they were harmful. so doesnt weaken

C. correct, says today humans are more susceptible to harmful effects of UV radiations, the ancestors because of their genetic qualitities were resistant.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:33 am
thanks aj5105, typo. will edit

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:07 am

by micheal_kr » Sun May 15, 2016 11:26 pm
I must admit that C seems to be the answer.