I'm inclined to think it's E. the argument states, higher pollution --> tougher it is for the mammal to fight off viral disease E states that more mammals had viral infection in the baltic sea, therefore, it is more polluted than the water off the scottish coast.

vivek1110 wrote:I'm inclined to think it's E. the argument states, higher pollution --> tougher it is for the mammal to fight off viral disease E states that more mammals had viral infection in the baltic sea, therefore, it is more polluted than the water off the scottish coast. u nailed it man its E only although i too got it correct but i was somewhere inclined towards D cud u give your reason for eliminating A,B,C and D OA is E

D weakens the argument, as it leaves open the possibility that the type of pollutant was responsible for the differing rates

thephoenix wrote:vivek1110 wrote:I'm inclined to think it's E. the argument states, higher pollution --> tougher it is for the mammal to fight off viral disease E states that more mammals had viral infection in the baltic sea, therefore, it is more polluted than the water off the scottish coast. u nailed it man its E only although i too got it correct but i was somewhere inclined towards D cud u give your reason for eliminating A,B,C and D OA is E The problem with D is that it talks about pollution in Scotland. But, it was never mentioned in the passage whether Scotland had any pollution.

D is not correct. there is a possibility that D weakens the passage. Our scope is seals died because of the pollutants and not because of what kind of pollutants. There is a possibility that whatever type of pollutants available in scottish sea may not be the cause of seal death. Thererfore, D is not correct. E is a correct optionthephoenix wrote:lsat