Lobsters and other crustaceans eaten by humans are more likely to con

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

This is a great separator question, and approximately one in three students answers this question correctly. However, some students are able to annihilate this question because they see a reference in the first line that raises an important issue that goes unanswered. That reference is to lobsters “eaten by humans.” The argument asserts that diverting the sewage in the harbor is a moot point because hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by the diseases caused by the sewage. This may be, but what about the humans who eat the lobsters that live in the sewage-contaminated environment? The author fails to address this point. The conclusion of the argument is near the end: “the proposal is pointless,” and this is based on the premise that “hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.”

Answer choice (A): The argument is based on the sewage contamination of the harbor. Although other contaminants may be present, they are not addressed by the argument, and thus this answer does not undermine the author’s position.

Answer choice (B): This answer has no impact because the argument is about lobsters that are caught in the harbor. So, while lobsters in the open ocean may live longer, the author’s point about lobsters in the harbor not living long enough to contract a gill disease is untouched.

Answer choice (C): The issue is not breeding frequency but longevity. So, while we are pleased to hear that lobsters in sewage-contaminated waters breed frequently, this fact does not impact an argument based on the age and disease contraction.

Answer choice (D): Although whether the lobsters contract a gill disease is a critical issue in the argument, the method of determining whether a lobster has a disease is not a critical issue. Again, keep in mind the heart of the argument: Premise: “hardly any lobsters live long enough to be harmed by those diseases.” Conclusion: “the proposal [to reroute harbor sewage] is pointless.” Nothing in that argument concerns the detection of the gill diseases.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. As discussed above, the author fails to address the effect of the contaminated lobsters on humans who consume them, and this answer attacks that hole. If humans become ill as a result of eating lobsters with gill diseases, and gill diseases are more likely to arise when the lobsters live in the sewage-contaminated waters, then the conclusion that the proposal is pointless is incorrect.