.

[6lehderjets]

.

[Eichörnchen]

Hey, just a heads up - you can't post copies of copyrighted materials. Probably wanna take that down.

[6lehderjets]

Thanks, I wasn't aware. Since you were one of the few that did see it any advice on how to go about it?

[HellOnHeels]

With A, it's telling you that if the bottom layers were contaminated, then the top layers also would be. Obviously it isn't the case that the top layers are contaminated, therefore, the bottom layers can't be. This weakens the critics argument.

With D, if each layer above was older than the layer below, then your topsoil would be the oldest and the deepest soil would be the youngest. Not only does this not make sense, but it would also sort of strengthen the critics argument that the deepest soil couldn't be that old.

Edit: you can still post something like "question about PT#, Section#, Q#", so that way people can go and look it up themselves and help you out. You just can't post the full questions/answers

[Bildungsroman]

The correct answer hinges on the fact that they dated samples from the topmost layer, associated with the present, all the way back to the disputed oldest reading. A is correct because if the percolation of old carbon would have affected the uppermost sample, that sample would have tested inconsistently as well (which it didn't). B supports the skeptics by adding information negative about carbon dating, B is totally out of left field and references information not mentioned anywhere, D would just be repeating the same flawed (in the skeptics' minds) test without addressing their problem since the sample in dispute is already the oldest they're testing, and E supports the skeptics by pointing out this result is inconsistent with current science.

[6lehderjets]

With A, it's telling you that if the bottom layers were contaminated, then the top layers also would be. Obviously it isn't the case that the top layers are contaminated, therefore, the bottom layers can't be. This weakens the critics argument.

With D, if each layer above was older than the layer below, then your topsoil would be the oldest and the deepest soil would be the youngest. Not only does this not make sense, but it would also sort of strengthen the critics argument that the deepest soil couldn't be that old.

Edit: you can still post something like "question about PT#, Section#, Q#", so that way people can go and look it up themselves and help you out. You just can't post the full questions/answers

Thanks! That helps clears up why A is right a little bit more and definitely shows why D is wrong. I normally do the PT, Section, Q method but Powerscore problem sets don't provide that info for some reason. Lame, I know. Thanks again.

[kahechsof]

Hey, just a heads up - you can't post copies of copyrighted materials. Probably wanna take that down.

Oh. I guess that's why the threads about specific questions never quote the question.

[6lehderjets]

The correct answer hinges on the fact that they dated samples from the topmost layer, associated with the present, all the way back to the disputed oldest reading. A is correct because if the percolation of old carbon would have affected the uppermost sample, that sample would have tested inconsistently as well (which it didn't). B supports the skeptics by adding information negative about carbon dating, B is totally out of left field and references information not mentioned anywhere, D would just be repeating the same flawed (in the skeptics' minds) test without addressing their problem since the sample in dispute is already the oldest they're testing, and E supports the skeptics by pointing out this result is inconsistent with current science.

I think what I'm missing is the fact that the top layer was considered to be accurate and its only deepest sample that critics dispute.

[Bildungsroman]

The correct answer hinges on the fact that they dated samples from the topmost layer, associated with the present, all the way back to the disputed oldest reading. A is correct because if the percolation of old carbon would have affected the uppermost sample, that sample would have tested inconsistently as well (which it didn't). B supports the skeptics by adding information negative about carbon dating, B is totally out of left field and references information not mentioned anywhere, D would just be repeating the same flawed (in the skeptics' minds) test without addressing their problem since the sample in dispute is already the oldest they're testing, and E supports the skeptics by pointing out this result is inconsistent with current science.

I think what I'm missing is the fact that the top layer was considered to be accurate and its only deepest sample that critics dispute.

Exactly, that's the little detail they slip in at the beginning, that samples from the present all the way back to the disputed sample were tested. This is what makes A the correct answer; if A is true, then the hypothesis of percolating "old carbon" explaining the reading is unlikely, since the sample that is from the present tested as being from the present, which A says wouldn't happen if the samples had been contaminated by old carbon. If you see a long question prompt like that in an LR strengthen/weaken question, pay attention to the details.

[6lehderjets]

The correct answer hinges on the fact that they dated samples from the topmost layer, associated with the present, all the way back to the disputed oldest reading. A is correct because if the percolation of old carbon would have affected the uppermost sample, that sample would have tested inconsistently as well (which it didn't). B supports the skeptics by adding information negative about carbon dating, B is totally out of left field and references information not mentioned anywhere, D would just be repeating the same flawed (in the skeptics' minds) test without addressing their problem since the sample in dispute is already the oldest they're testing, and E supports the skeptics by pointing out this result is inconsistent with current science.

I think what I'm missing is the fact that the top layer was considered to be accurate and its only deepest sample that critics dispute.

Exactly, that's the little detail they slip in at the beginning, that samples from the present all the way back to the disputed sample were tested. This is what makes A the correct answer; if A is true, then the hypothesis of percolating "old carbon" explaining the reading is unlikely, since the sample that is from the present tested as being from the present, which A says wouldn't happen if the samples had been contaminated by old carbon. If you see a long question prompt like that in an LR strengthen/weaken question, pay attention to the details.

And it clicks! Thanks for your help.