BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

LSAT CR 3

Expert replies
by ankit1383 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:17 am
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.

I need a break....uff not able to get it right..... :roll:
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by vikram_k51 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:28 am
Between A and C.I would go wih C.
Join the discussion

by rseeker2 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:33 am
Is it C?

Greater damage to the ozone layer did not affect our ancestors, so the damage caused to the ozone layer because of the relatively lesser CFCs are not going to affect humans.

By establishing that our ancestors possessed some special ability which helped them withstand the radiation,(which we now lack), the argument can be weakened.
Join the discussion

by arorag » Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:40 am
it has to be C
Join the discussion

by ankit1383 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:27 pm
OA is B
dnt know how...
Join the discussion

by Spring2009 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:45 pm
B is reasonable, because the supernova actually did damage ozone layer but at a moderate rate that did not harm our ancestors, but since then natural events have continued to damage ozone layer more and more.
This weakens the arguement that the chemicals don't harm human at all.

However, I don't see any wrong with C and E.
Could anyone explain?
Last edited by Spring2009 on Sun Aug 16, 2009 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion

by ankit1383 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 7:16 pm
Spring2009 wrote:B is reasonable, because the supernova actually did damage ozone layer but at a moderate rate that did not harm our ancestors, but since then natural events have continued to damage ozone layer more and more.
This weakens the arguement that the chemicals don't harm human at all.

However, I don't see any wrong with B and E.
Could anyone explain?
Please give me reasoning to negate C
Join the discussion

by Spring2009 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 7:27 pm
ankit1383 wrote:
Spring2009 wrote:B is reasonable, because the supernova actually did damage ozone layer but at a moderate rate that did not harm our ancestors, but since then natural events have continued to damage ozone layer more and more.
This weakens the arguement that the chemicals don't harm human at all.

However, I don't see any wrong with B and E.
Could anyone explain?
Please give me reasoning to negate C
Sorry I did typo, I also don't see anything wrong with C.
Also need an explaination.
Join the discussion

by rseeker2 » Sun Aug 16, 2009 7:42 pm
But it is nowhere mentioned that the supernova caused moderate damage. Infact it says that the 'supernova greatly damaged the ozone layer'
Join the discussion

by missionGMAT007 » Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:54 am
Initially I also answered the question as C but later a thorough analysis provided the below explanation. Have a look and let me know if this makes sense :)

premise 1 - release of
chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere is
harming humans by damaging the ozone layer

premise 2 - supernova's disruption was much
greater than the estimated effect of
chlorofluorocarbons today

conclusion - there is no reason to
think that these chemicals in the atmosphere
harm humans in this way.

B)Natural events, such as the eruption of
volcanoes, continue to damage the ozone layer
today.

B explains that even though premise 2 is right, the danger is more, as there is one more source to damage the ozone layer (which might factor in the higher percentage and hence more danger)
Join the discussion

by rseeker2 » Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:44 pm
Ankit... could you please tell the source of these questions?
Join the discussion

by ankit1383 » Mon Aug 17, 2009 9:01 pm
LSAT Test
Join the discussion

by scoobydooby » Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:52 am
ankit1383,
could you please post the Official explanation.i cant follow the reasoning behind B
Join the discussion

by joseph32 » Sun May 15, 2016 9:11 pm
I'm pretty confident that C is correct answer.
Join the discussion