Support A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal population in the North Sea to die since May 1988. ███ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ █████ ████████ █████ ████ ██ █ ██████ ███ ████████ ██████ █████ █████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███ ██████
The stimulus describes a phenomenon: since May 1988, two-thirds of seals in the North Sea have died from a distemper virus. The author says the virus alone, which is normally "latent," is not a sufficient explanation for this phenomenon, and hypothesizes that severe pollution in the North Sea weakened the seals' immune systems and made them vulnerable to the virus.
The argument concerning the immune ██████ ██ ███ █████ ███████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
There has been █ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ██████████
Incorrect. Nothing in the argument presupposes that there has been a longer history of decline in the seal population.
No further sources ██ █████████ ████ ████ █████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ████
Incorrect. This could be true, but isn't required by the argument. If we negate this to state that additional sources of pollution have been added since 1988, that would still be perfectly consistent with the author's hypothesis that it is pollution in the North Sea in general, not only in May 1988 and prior, that has caused the seals to be so vulnerable to this virus.
There was no ██████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ █████ █████ ████ ███████ ███ █████ ████████████ ██ ██████ ███████ █████ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████
Correct. The argument necessarily rules out any explanation that is not North Sea pollution, including mutations in the virus that make it more deadly. If we negate this answer choice to state that there had been a mutation in the virus by May 1988 that made it more deadly, that would severely undermine the author's argument that North Sea pollution is "clearly" the reason the seals are so vulnerable.
Pollution in the █████ ███ ██ ██ ███████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ███ ██ ██████
Irrelevant. We don't know anything about what's going on with the seal populations in these other seas. For all we know, seals in these other places with similar pollution levels have also been dying off since the late 1980s.
Some species that ███████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ████ ██████ ██████ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████
Incorrect. This could be true — it seems plausible that if the pollution affects the seals, it would also affect some of their food species — but it isn't required by the argument. Notice that if you negate this answer choice, the argument remains unaffected.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.