Professor: A marine biologist argues that transmission of sea lice from farm salmon to wild salmon is unlikely in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia, citing numerous studies suggesting that salinities less than 30 parts per thousand are unfavorable to sea-lice survival. The biologist concludes that the archipelago's 25–30 parts per thousand salinity range between March and June, the critical period for wild salmon migration, tends to suppress sea-lice proliferation. But a review of the literature shows that salinities of 25–30 parts per thousand in combination with British Columbia's cool spring temperatures favor the flourishing of sea lice.
In this passage, the professor attempts to undermine the biologist's argument by
A. pointing out that a condition claimed to be necessary for sea-lice survival is not sufficient for it
B. citing studies that suggest that salinity levels were not measured reliably
C. claiming that there is evidence showing that one of its premises is false
D. questioning the reliability of the biologist's scientific sources
E. showing that its conclusion is inconsistent with its premises
Let’s look at the stimulus of the professor’s argument-
Premises/ evidence (He uses the Marine biologist’s argument as his premise)
Marine biologist’s argument-
Conclusion- transmission of sea lice from farm salmon to wild salmon is unlikely in the Broughton Archipelago, British Columbia,
Premises/evidence-
numerous studies suggest that salinities less than 30 parts per thousand are unfavorable to sea-lice survival.
the archipelago's 25–30 parts per thousand salinity range between March and June, the critical period for wild salmon migration, tends to suppress sea-lice proliferation.
(Professor’s argument)
BUT
a review of the literature shows that salinities of 25–30 parts per thousand in combination with British Columbia's cool spring temperatures favor the flourishing of sea lice.
The bold-faces phrases show a contradiction. And that is what the question asks for- the professor attempts to undermine the biologist's argument by?
A. pointing out that a condition claimed to be necessary for sea-lice survival is not sufficient for it
The professor does not point out that the condition claimed to be necessary for sea-lice survival is not sufficient for it. Rather he says that the condition favors the flourishing of sea lice. Eliminate.
B. citing studies that suggest that salinity levels were not measured reliably
The professor nowhere in his argument mentions studies that question the reliability of the measurement.That tone cannot be inferred from the argument. He does not say that the measurements are inaccurate. He only says that such a condition (25–30 parts per thousand) in combination with British Columbia's cool spring temperatures favor the flourishing of sea lice. Eliminate.
C. claiming that there is evidence showing that one of its premises is false
The professor says that- But there is evidence that shows that salinities of 25–30 parts per thousand in combination with British Columbia's cool spring temperatures favor the flourishing of sea lice.
This is contradictory to one of the premises of the marine biologist’s argument. Hence correct.
D. questioning the reliability of the biologist's scientific sources
Nope. The professor isn’t questioning the reliability of the biologist's scientific sources. Almost same as B. Eliminate
E. showing that its conclusion is inconsistent with its premises
The professor doesn’t say that there is an inconsistency in the biologist’s argument. He simply brings in another evidence that contradicts one of the premises of the biologist’s argument. Eliminate.
