Self-study
Between 1976 and 1985, chemical wastes were dumped into Cod Bay. ██████ █ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ █████████ ███████████ ████ █████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ███████████████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ████████ ████ ███████ ████ █████ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The representatives hypothesize that the deformity in bluefin cod was caused by the chemical waste dumped into Cod Bay. This is because those chemicals are known to cause genetic mutations.
Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere co-occurrence of chemicals and deformity, the representatives assume that the presence of chemicals caused the deformity in bluefin cod. This means the representatives don’t believe some third factor in fact caused the deformity, and that the deformity rates didn’t in fact precede the chemical waste being dumped in Cod Bay.
11.
The answer to each of ███ █████████ █████████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████████████ █████ ███████
a
What is the █████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ ███ ████
This would be helpful to know. If the incidence of deformity in unexposed bluefin cod is generally the same, then it would seem the chemicals made no difference. If the incidence was lower, then the chemicals would explain the 3% rate in Cod Bay.
Plausibility
Plausibility
Presenting evidence that corroborates (in Strengthen) or conflicts (in Weaken) with the author's hypothesized explanation or the predictions that follow from that explanation.
b
What was the █████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██████
If the incidence of deformity in bluefin cod didn't change, then it would seem the chemicals made no difference. If the incidence was lower before dumping, then that would establish a temporal correlation. This would help to evaluate the hypothesis.
Plausibility
Plausibility
Presenting evidence that corroborates (in Strengthen) or conflicts (in Weaken) with the author's hypothesized explanation or the predictions that follow from that explanation.
c
Has the consumption ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███ █████
Whether or not the cod deformity impacts human health isn't relevant to what caused the deformity in the first place. This information wouldn't weaken or strengthen either way, so it's not useful.
d
Are bluefin cod █████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ████
If the answer is yes, then these diseases rather than the chemical may have been responsible for the deformities. If the answer is no, then that eliminates an alternative cause to the chemicals. This is useful information.
Plausibility
Plausibility
Presenting evidence that corroborates (in Strengthen) or conflicts (in Weaken) with the author's hypothesized explanation or the predictions that follow from that explanation.
e
Are there gene-altering ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████
Like (D), this points to an alternate cause, so it's useful. If other pollutants can cause deformities, then chemical waste might not be to blame. If other pollutants can’t cause deformities, chemical waste remains a highly viable explanation.
Alternate explanation
Alternate explanation
Weaken: Introduce or support an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.
Strengthen: Helps to eliminate an alternate explanation for a phenomenon.