bv8562
The argument concludes that the boulder was probably carried hundreds of miles from its birthplace by a "southward-moving" glacier. Why? Because the boulder is volcanic in origin, but the "rest of the rock in this area is sedimentary."
Let's now consider (B):
Quote:
This boulder is volcanic in origin and yet the rest of the rock in this area is sedimentary. Since this area was covered by southward-moving glaciers during the last ice age, this boulder was probably deposited here, hundreds of miles from its geological birthplace, by a glacier.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion drawn in the argument above?
(B) The closest geological source of volcanic rock is 50 miles south of this boulder.
If (B) is true, would it weaken the conclusion above? Not really. The argument claims that the rock originated to the north (i.e. it was carried by a southward-moving glacier). So the fact that a source of volcanic rock exists to the SOUTH isn't relevant to that argument.
But what about the fact that a source of volcanic rock is located only 50 miles away? Perhaps the rock was carried from that source? If so, wouldn't that weaken the argument?
The problem with that line of reasoning is that it would require too many leaps. Presumably, you'd need a northward-moving glacier to move volcanic rock from south to north. But we don't know if there was such a glacier. All we know is the "area was covered by a southward moving glacier during the last ice age."
For both of those reasons, (B) is incorrect.
I hope that helps!