OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
It is posited by some scientists that the near extinction of the sap-eating gray bat of northwestern America was caused by government-sponsored logging operations in the early 1920s that greatly reduced the species’ habitat.
Which of the following, if true, most strongly weakens the scientists’ claims?(A) Logging operations in the 1920s are widely held responsible for the near extinction of other species that lived in the same area.
(B) A boom in new home construction in the early 1920s led congress to open federal lands to logging operations.
(C) A 5-year drought in the early 1920s severely reduced the output of sap in trees in northwestern America.
(D) Numbers of sightings of sap-eating gray bats fell to their lowest numbers in 1926.
(E) Sightings of sap-eating gray bats in Europe stayed roughly the same during the same period.
C This is a causal argument. The scientists claim that the bat’s near extinction was caused by logging. How do we weaken this argument? By presenting an alternate cause—another reason why the bat almost became extinct. Choices A and B actually strengthen the argument. Choice A says that other species were also threatened with extinction by logging, and choice B gives us a reason the government might have been tempted to agree to logging on federal lands. Choice D is outside the scope of the argument since “sightings” are irrelevant. Choice E also goes outside the scope of the argument by telling us about the bat population on another continent. But choice C gives us an alternate cause for the near extinction of these bats: the sap they depended on for nourishment was severely reduced at the time in question by a five-year drought.