This question is so tricky because I feel like in other questions, we are 100% expected to make logical leaps/inferences just like the trap answer B. "Last refuge" = "will be extinct" seems like a reasonable conclusion to draw, especially given other questions where we're expected to "read between the lines."

I do see how the strict formal logic analysis does not support B. But damn, this was hard!

Was anyone else confused about AC A because the stimulus contains the phrase “over time”? I initially felt as though the fact that boat noise causes hearing damage over time lends support to the idea that older whales would have more hearing damage.

I guess this rests on my assumption that “over time” is referring to the whales’ lifetime, but I can’t think of another more reasonable interpretation. I guess maybe it’s a stretch because the stimulus doesn’t directly talk about young vs. old whales, but curious if anyone else got caught here.

Thinking hypercritically, I’m wondering about the impact that the rain has on the causal chain. I understand that if the mining company hadn’t caused the chemical leak, then nothing else on the causal chain would have happened. But heavy rainfall is what CAUSED the chemicals to be washed into the water—something the mining company did not have anything to do with. Couldn’t it be argued that if not for the rain (an outside factor), then the causal chain would be weakened?

Failure to seal > leach into soil

rain

rain > wash into ocean > dolphins poisoned

The leaching of chemicals into the soil did not cause the rain. So isn’t there an interruption here in the complete causal chain from mining company > dolphins dead???

Thinking about this in terms of an answer choice that says something like “no heavy rain had occurred during the time of the event” etc.

5.1 I feel like it would be more helpful to think of the comparative quality here as being "which one is more during the ice age"

I understand that, specifically, what is being compared is the amount of precipitation. But because the comparative contains a qualifier, which indicates the specific scenario in which the comparison is being made, I feel like it clarifies things to include the qualifier in the quality being compared.

Then it would work like this:

Step 1. Identify A v. B.

A: amount of Earth's precipitation that falls over land

v.

B: amount of Earth's precipitation that falls over the ocean

Step 2. Identify what we're comparing

Which one is more during the ice age?

Step 3. Identify the "winner."

A, the amount of Earth's precipitation that falls over land "wins" meaning there's more of it.

Does anyone see a problem with including the qualifier in step 2 like this?