hero_with_1000_faces wrote:
6. It can be inferred that the statements made by Bull and Brandon and reported (Text in red at the end of the passage) rely on which one of the following assumptions?
Explanation for #6 Question Type: Inference and Assumptionhero_with_1000_faces wrote:
(A) While lichenometry is less accurate when it is used to date earthquakes that occurred more than 500 years ago, it is still more accurate than other methods for dating such earthquakes.
Do we know this for sure? This answer choice attempts to bait us into assuming that Lichenometry is more accurate than
other methods. The only other method that is discussed is radio carbon dating. We have no knowledge of what other methods may be out there.
This answer choice is a completely unwarranted assumption. Further, Ball and Brandon's statements certainly do not "
rely" on this faulty assumption.
Eliminate hero_with_1000_faces wrote:
(B) There is no reliable method for determining the intensity of the radiation now hitting Earth’s upper atmosphere.
This assumption is completely irrelevant. Nowhere do Ball and Brandon's statements discuss radiation hitting the Earth's upper atmosphere. Radio carbon dating, the other method, is related to measuring radiation hitting the Earth's upper atmosphere.
If you chose this answer, you probably didn't look back at the
red text and understand what the question is asking.
Eliminatehero_with_1000_faces wrote:
(C) Lichens are able to grow only on the types of rocks that are common in mountainous regions.
This answer choice is equally as irrelevant as (B). In no way can we infer that (C) is an assumption that Ball and Brandon's statements
rely on.
Eliminatehero_with_1000_faces wrote:
(D) The mountain ranges that produce the kinds of rockfalls studied in lichenometry are also subject to more frequent snowfalls and avalanches than other mountain ranges are.
This answer choice is also out of left-field. The
red text does say that careful site selection is a limitation of lichenometry, and that one of the factors in site selection is to avoid areas where avalanches or other disturbances may have happened, as those occurrences could effect the lichen growth rate.
However, we do not know that rockfalls studied in lichenometry are subject to
more snowfalls and avalanches than other mountain ranges. Completely out of scope.
Eliminatehero_with_1000_faces wrote:
(E) The extent to which conditions like shade and wind have affected the growth of existing lichen colonies can be determined.
The
red text tells us that "
conditions like shade and wind that promote faster lichen growth must be factored in" when performing lichenometry. Well, if shade and wind
must be factored in, then that means that we can measure the extent to which they affect the growth rate.
To make it simpler, what if we used the negation method on this assumption?
Negation method: hero_with_1000_faces wrote:
(E) The extent to which conditions like shade and wind have affected the growth of existing lichen colonies can not be determined.
If the extent to which shade and wind affect the growth rate can
not be determined, then how could we factor in conditions like shade and wind?
The negated version of this answer choice completely
wrecks the last sentence of the passage.
We have our answer