PT 50 Section 2 # 24 Forum

[srpaik]

Hi, I was going over PT 50, and section 2 #24 confuses me.

I have to find the answer that does Not Weaken the argument.

I know the answer is A, but how does answer choice C weaken the argument?

[malfurion]

In the stimulus it says that the cause of the expected decrease in the negative effects is the decrease in the amount of pollutants. But in (C) the decrease in pollutants is expected to end soon, so that would mean the decrease in the negative effects would end as well if that happens.

[srpaik]

In the stimulus it says that the cause of the expected decrease in the negative effects is the decrease in the amount of pollutants. But in (C) the decrease in pollutants is expected to end soon, so that would mean the decrease in the negative effects would end as well if that happens.

Yes, the columnist's argument is "We can expect, then, an overall decrease in the negative environmental effects of acid rain, which is caused by these acidic pollutants."

This suggests that the columnist argues that there would be an overall decrease right NOW. But answer choice (C) suggests that the current decrease is expected to end soon, which has nothing to do with NOW, but has more to do with FUTURE.

I am really confused, cuz I still think it does not necessarily WEAKEN the argument.

Or wait, is the columnist argues that there would be an overall decrease in the imminent future?

[jamesieee]

I think you can infer, from the shared term "expected," that the stimulus and answer choice (C) are talking about the same time period. If the acidic pollutants are EXPECTED to increase, that would negate the EXPECTED decrease of negative effects. As in, you can no longer EXPECT the negative effects to decrease if you EXPECT the pollutants to increase.

Sorry, don't know if that made any sense.

[srpaik]

I think you can infer, from the shared term "expected," that the stimulus and answer choice (C) are talking about the same time period. If the acidic pollutants are EXPECTED to increase, that would negate the EXPECTED decrease of negative effects. As in, you can no longer EXPECT the negative effects to decrease if you EXPECT the pollutants to increase.

Sorry, don't know if that made any sense.

Thanks! I guess I didn't catch that 'expect' word to be inferred like that.

[MissLucky]

Can someone help me understand how D weakens the argument. Even if the effects of acid rain are cumulative, the decrease in acidic pollutants has been going on for several decades so of course we can expect a decrease in the negative environmental effects of acid rain, right?

[EarlCat]

Even if the effects of acid rain are cumulative, the decrease in acidic pollutants has been going on for several decades so of course we can expect a decrease in the negative environmental effects of acid rain, right?

No, if they're cumulative, they can only increase. The decrease in yearly pollution just adds a smaller amount to the total each year. The total (and thus the negative effects) still go up. All that's happened is that the rate of growth has slowed (which is only considered a "decrease" if you're in congress.)

[MissLucky]

Even if the effects of acid rain are cumulative, the decrease in acidic pollutants has been going on for several decades so of course we can expect a decrease in the negative environmental effects of acid rain, right?

No, if they're cumulative, they can only increase. The decrease in yearly pollution just adds a smaller amount to the total each year. The total (and thus the negative effects) still go up. All that's happened is that the rate of growth has slowed (which is only considered a "decrease" if you're in congress.)

you're amazing. thanks on this one as well!!! great explanation