Fish and dioxins

[vk_vinayak]

Found it in LSAT forums. Seems to be a good question.

Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are immediately downstream of paper mills. One possible cause is dioxin, which paper mills release daily and which can alter the concentration of hormones in fish. However, dioxin is unlikely to be the cause, since the fish recover normal hormone concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill shutdowns and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover quickly during shutdowns were funded by paper manufacturers.

(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies depending on the conditions to which it is exposed.

(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in the river far downstream in a few hours.

(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from the physiological changes that were induced by
the changes in hormone concentrations.

(E) The connection between hormone concentrations and reproductive abnormalities is not thoroughly understood.

[Birottam Dutta]

A real tough question!!!

The conclusion here is that hormonal changes that occur in fishes is not due to dioxin released from the paper mills since fishes recover normal hormone concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill shut downs and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment.

In other words, since dioxin decomposes very slowly and yet the fishes recover their normal hormone concentrations, the author is saying that hormonal changes are not due to the dioxin. So, the author is saying that there is no other reason why the dioxin levels reach normalcy other than the inherent system of the fish which does not allow dioxin to affect it.

To weaken this argument, we need to find a choice which shows why the dioxin levels may be reaching normal ranges in fishes.

Choice C fits in perfectly because it shows that the currents carry the dioxin far downstream quickly and this is the reason why its level in fishes reaches normalcy quickly. So, C weakens the argument.

A is irrelevant.
B is out of scope.
D talks of some of the fish which is again not sufficient.
E is also out of scope.

I hope this is correct and I hope it helps clear this question.

[Gaurav 2013-fall]

Is OA B?

[Gaurav 2013-fall]

Found it in LSAT forums. Seems to be a good question.

Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities in fish that are immediately downstream of paper mills. One possible cause is dioxin, which paper mills release daily and which can alter the concentration of hormones in fish. However, dioxin is unlikely to be the cause, since the fish recover normal hormone concentrations relatively quickly during occasional mill shutdowns and dioxin decomposes very slowly in the environment.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Some of the studies that show that fish recover quickly during shutdowns were funded by paper manufacturers.

(B) The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies depending on the conditions to which it is exposed.

(C) Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in the river far downstream in a few hours.

(D) Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from the physiological changes that were induced by
the changes in hormone concentrations.

(E) The connection between hormone concentrations and reproductive abnormalities is not thoroughly understood.

Hey VK,
Could you share which LSAT forum you got this problem from?
Thanks

[vk_vinayak]

Hey VK,
Could you share which LSAT forum you got this problem from?
Thanks

I do not know the answer. Today morning, I bumped into this thread while surfing for another question, and here most people think that answer is C.

https://www.top-law-schools.com/archives ... f=6&t=8077

[ice_rush]

agreed (C) should be correct.