Self-study
A study was designed to establish what effect, if any, the long-term operation of offshore oil rigs had on animal life on the bottom of the sea. ███ █████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ████ ████ ████ █████ ███████ ██ ███████ █████ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ███ ███ █████ ██ ███████████ ████████████ ███ ███████████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████████
Weakening The Hypothesis
This stimulus follows the phenomenon hypothesis pattern common in Weaken questions.
Phenomenon: There were no differences between the sea-bottom communities directly under the rig and the ones miles away.
________
Hypothesis: Oil rigs have no (adverse) effect on sea-bottom communities.
Weakening the hypothesis means imagining a world where oil rigs could harm sea-bottom communities, but not in a way that varies with distance.
6.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████████████ ███████████
a
Commercially important fish ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ █████ █████ ██ █ ████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████████████
Cool, cool… Has there been a drop in catches of those fish?
Here’s an analogy. I think Santa Claus is not real (sorry). (A) says “If Santa came down your chimney and slapped you in the face, that would be evidence that Santa exists.” Which like, yeah it would! But until Santa actually comes down that chimney, my position hasn’t been weakened at all.
b
The discharge of ███ ████ ████████ ███ ████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ █████ █████ ███ ███ ████████████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██████
(B) describes a world in which getting covered in gross oily discharge isn’t related to being close to the oil rig. In this world, looking at sea-bottom communities right at the base of an oil rig is a bad way to measure the oil rig’s potential effects.
c
Contamination of the █████ █████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ █████
There’s no indication that the researchers were ignoring diversity and density when they conducted the study and found “no significant differences.”
(C) would be relevant if the researchers’ logic were “the sea-bottom animals near rigs were not completely destroyed, so oil rigs have no adverse effects on sea-bottom animals.”
d
Only part of ███ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ███ █████ ██████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ██████
(D) would be relevant to a conclusion that “oil rigs had no adverse effect on animals anywhere in the oceans or the great skies above.”
But our conclusion is only about adverse effects on sea-bottom communities.
e
Where the ocean █████ ████████ ██ ████ █████████ █████████████ ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ███ █████ █████ ██ ██████
(E) could be relevant if we had some information about how softness vs. hardness relates to distance from the rig.
Like IF (big if) rigs are always built where the floor is super rocky, and IF (big if) the far-away communities were all in places with super-soft floors, then maybe the nearby communities are getting hit by tons of oil that dissipates quickly, the faraway communities are getting hit by less oil that dissipates more slowly, and they look the same even though they’re all being adversely affected. BOOM!
Except we have no idea what’s rocky and what’s soft.