Mayor of Alberville: Factories in Alberville together emitted twenty percent less carbon dioxide in 2001 than in 2000.
The decline in emissions was probably due almost exclusively to the March 2001 development of floating seaweed
farms, the first step toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions that, in addition to being cost-efficient, was also
widespread.
Scientists: That cannot be the cause. As you yourself clearly stated, carbon dioxide emissions were reduced by
twenty percent.
Yet seaweed farms can only absorb ten percent of Alberville factories' emissions. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that the scientists present
to the mayor's explanation?
(A) The cost of the seaweed farms was covered by a tax increase to industrial firms in Alberville.
Irrelevant to the reduction of emission.(B) The number of factories in Alberville was greater in 2001 than in 2000.
This tends to have no relevance on the scientists' argument.(C) Seaweed farms had a greater effect on Alberville emissions levels than any other plan undertaken in Alberville.
Does not prove how the emission was reduced by 20%(D) Seaweed farms are more cost-efficient than any other method of reducing emissions.
Are we concerned about cost efficiency.(E) When seaweed plants die, they can be used as a low-emissions fuel source.
Correct, this option provides support to the mayor's argument and hence weakens the scientists' argumentClear E,
Explanation:The scientist counters the claim of the mayor by presenting factual data that seaweed's can only absorb 10 per cent of city's factories' emissions.
Pre-thinking: You can't debate the factual data, so to weaken's the scientists' claim you must somehow prove that the mayor's argument holds. Option E does this by providing us with additional information that even after the seaweed's die, they can be used as a low emission fuel, which reduces the emission levels on a whole.
_________________
--It's one thing to get defeated, but another to accept it.