yashwardhan wrote:
Can someone explain why E cannot be the correct answer? Negating E breaks the conclusion as well!
Prolonged and unseasonable frosts produce frost rings in deciduous trees, which grow in moderate climates. Frost rings do not appear in any of the fossilized deciduous trees that have been found in Antarctica. Hence, it is unlikely that such frosts occurred in Antarctica at the time the fossilized trees lived. Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A.There are fossilized nondeciduous trees from Antarctica that bear frost rings.
B.Deciduous trees are more likely to bear frost rings than are other tree varieties.
C.The process of fossilization does not completely obscure frost rings in deciduous trees.
D.Present-day deciduous trees are more sensitive to changes in temperature than were the deciduous trees of ancient Antarctica.
E.Prolonged and unseasonable frosts that might have occurred in Antarctica when the now-fossilized trees were still living did not always produce frost rings in deciduous trees.
The negation of E is
Prolonged and unseasonable frosts that might have occurred in Antarctica when the now-fossilized trees were still living always produced frost rings in deciduous trees.
This negated version supports the premise that "Prolonged and unseasonable frosts produce frost rings in deciduous trees". By negating we need to break either the reasoning used in the argument (that is the link between the premise and conclusion) or the conclusion of the argument. Thus, the negation of E doesn't help to break the conclusion or the reasoning used.
Here the reasoning used by the argument is that evidence of no rings in the fossils suggests that it is unlikely that such frost occurred in Antarctica. So we need to weaken this reasoning.
On negating B we get that " process of fossilization completely obscures the rings" ...if this is the case then we can not certainly say that the frost occurred in Antarctica. hence breaks the conclusion