I missed almost every question on this and usually only miss 5 questions in my RC sections:///

Yeah I still don't understand

Use the Quick View feature before pressing play on the video

I did a reply above this one with my thought process on how I got C and why I think it was wrong.

Like Angelina, I also chose C because I added an extra assumption that is not "common sense". I assumed: if there are a bunch of other stuff in the dust besides Ferrous Material, those things could have caused the growth in Algae, not the Ferrous Material. But that is not what is stated. It just says there's a bunch of other stuff! Maybe if it said "The dust contained other materials in addition to Ferrous. And in some air bubbles, that had no ferrous material, but contained other materials, the CO2 level was still unusually low" This would show that Ferrous did not cause algae which caused low CO2, and that in fact it would be something else. I realize now how much of a big assumption i had to make to get to C.

On the other hand, in D --- we still make a few assumptions. But not as great. one being when Diatoms (algae) die, their shells fall to the bottom of the ocean floor. This asumption seems a bit more "common sense" than the one above because if there was so much Algae that the CO2 is weirdly low, wouldnt we have some evidence (i.e. a lot of dead algae or algae residue)?

I think the most important part of all of this is that the question stem says: which would most seriously undermine the argument. C undermines nothing on it's own without a lot of extra information and controlled scenarios. D however, though not immediately apparent, does seriously undermine the argument in a way C does not.

Thanks Meow123(:

Definitely overthought this question and got it wrong because of the question stem.

Also answer D seems to say: Hey actually heat is really killing the enyzmes, not microwaves. Its just we can't tell that by the overall temperature because the extreme heat needed to kill the enzyme is only seen in the pockets.

Yeah that's what i was thinking. But i think what matters here is that none of the other answer choices create doubt about whether microwaves are the culprit.

A. --- Interesting... but if anything this sentence plus another (ex. heating raw milk on a hot plate to 100 degrees doesnt destroy all enzymes) would support the intial claim. We'd need something else here to have any kind of impact (strengthening or weakening) to whether microwaves are the culprit.

B. --- Replacing enzymes does nothing to discredit that microwaves are the culprit

C. --- A hot plate at 100 degrees will heat milk faster than a hot plate at 50. (this doesnt discredit microwaves. nor does it make a claim suggesting heat has an impact on enyzmes)

D. ---- Only one left and it suggests that the pockets created are what kills the enzymes and not microwave radiation.

haha same. Because it my head its still like... okay aren't the microwaves creating the pockets that make it hotter and therefore is still the reason more enzymes are killed in the microwave than in the coventional sources. A conventional source wouldn't create pockets.... why? maybe because it doesn't have microwaves? But either way E is still a better answer than C because C taken literally just doesn't do anything for the argument about Microwaves or any other the other answers for that matter.

Hi! I’d also like to join I’m pting in the 150s though ):