Q16 - On the basis of the available

[kky215]

Is E wrong because of the strong language "melted either as a result of"? (The stimulus has the non-absolute wording "could have")

Can anyone please respond in a timely manner?

Thanks a lot.

[hyewonkim89]

Hi kky215,

The conclusion of this stimulus is that the Antarctic ice sheet must temporarily have melted about three million years ago. In other words, it is actually NOT true that Antarctica has been covered by ice for at least the last 14 million years.

However, the answer choice (E) doesn't mention anything about three million years ago or the ice sheet not being continuously present for the last 14 million years.

That's the reason why I eliminated (E).

I hope this helps.

[foralexpark]

Is E wrong because of the strong language "melted either as a result of"? (The stimulus has the non-absolute wording "could have")

Can anyone please respond in a timely manner?

Thanks a lot.

kky215,

It is not because of the STRONG language per se,

It is just that the main conclusion is that the "generally been thought.... the past 14 million years" is false, or rather, not exactly true.

"either volcanic activity or severe climate warning" is just a continuation that supports the main conclusion

[luis.rodriguez]

I chose (A) for this question.

It's wrong though because the stimulus says nothing of the sort about what people now generally think.

It only mentions what "has generally been thought."

[rinagoldfield]

Great conversation above!

This is an Identify the Conclusion question. Our task is just what it sounds like: identify the conclusion. We need to keep the conclusion straight from premises, background, and assumptions.

The argument core here goes like this:

Premises: 3-million-year-old fossils were found under Antarctica’s ice sheet. These kinds of fossils were previously only found in ocean-floor sediments.

Conclusion: About three million years ago, the Antarctic ice sheet must’ve temporarily melted.

We can tell this is a conclusion for a couple of reasons. First, it is a claim made by the author. Language like "must have" lets us know that this is a claim. Second, we can think about the logical flow of the argument. What can we conclude from the new fossil evidence? That our old timeline must be wrong!

The first sentence functions as our opposing point. It gives us the old way of thinking about the Antarctic ice sheet.

The last sentence gives us background. It basically says: "Here are some ways the ice sheet could’ve melted." This isn’t a premise (it doesn’t tell us WHY the author thinks the ice sheet must’ve melted) but it does support the conclusion.

We’re looking for some kind of rewording of the conclusion in the answer choices below.

(A) is tempting, but we don’t know what is "generally thought." We only know what the author of this argument thinks.

(B) is a premise underminer. Certainly not what we’re looking for!

(C) is correct. It’s not an exact language match of our conclusion above, but it’s a spirit match. (C) basically says "contrary to previous assumptions, the ice sheet must’ve melted in the past 14 million years." That’s essentially what the author concludes, too, albeit a little more specifically.

(D) gives us background information. Our conclusion is THAT the ice sheet melted, not the result of its melting.

(E) also gives us background information. Remember, the last sentence isn’t necessarily the author’s conclusion!

Hope this helps.

[blairped]

Great conversation above!

This is an Identify the Conclusion question. Our task is just what it sounds like: identify the conclusion. We need to keep the conclusion straight from premises, background, and assumptions.

The argument core here goes like this:

Premises: 3-million-year-old fossils were found under Antarctica’s ice sheet. These kinds of fossils were previously only found in ocean-floor sediments.

Conclusion: About three million years ago, the Antarctic ice sheet must’ve temporarily melted.

We can tell this is a conclusion for a couple of reasons. First, it is a claim made by the author. Language like "must have" lets us know that this is a claim. Second, we can think about the logical flow of the argument. What can we conclude from the new fossil evidence? That our old timeline must be wrong!

The first sentence functions as our opposing point. It gives us the old way of thinking about the Antarctic ice sheet.

The last sentence gives us background. It basically says: "Here are some ways the ice sheet could’ve melted." This isn’t a premise (it doesn’t tell us WHY the author thinks the ice sheet must’ve melted) but it does support the conclusion.

We’re looking for some kind of rewording of the conclusion in the answer choices below.

(A) is tempting, but we don’t know what is "generally thought." We only know what the author of this argument thinks.

(B) is a premise underminer. Certainly not what we’re looking for!

(C) is correct. It’s not an exact language match of our conclusion above, but it’s a spirit match. (C) basically says "contrary to previous assumptions, the ice sheet must’ve melted in the past 14 million years." That’s essentially what the author concludes, too, albeit a little more specifically.

(D) gives us background information. Our conclusion is THAT the ice sheet melted, not the result of its melting.

(E) also gives us background information. Remember, the last sentence isn’t necessarily the author’s conclusion!

Hope this helps.

I chose C as the answer, but how come the answer key says E is the answer?! Oh my.........

[blairped]

Great conversation above!

This is an Identify the Conclusion question. Our task is just what it sounds like: identify the conclusion. We need to keep the conclusion straight from premises, background, and assumptions.

The argument core here goes like this:

Premises: 3-million-year-old fossils were found under Antarctica’s ice sheet. These kinds of fossils were previously only found in ocean-floor sediments.

Conclusion: About three million years ago, the Antarctic ice sheet must’ve temporarily melted.

We can tell this is a conclusion for a couple of reasons. First, it is a claim made by the author. Language like "must have" lets us know that this is a claim. Second, we can think about the logical flow of the argument. What can we conclude from the new fossil evidence? That our old timeline must be wrong!

The first sentence functions as our opposing point. It gives us the old way of thinking about the Antarctic ice sheet.

The last sentence gives us background. It basically says: "Here are some ways the ice sheet could’ve melted." This isn’t a premise (it doesn’t tell us WHY the author thinks the ice sheet must’ve melted) but it does support the conclusion.

We’re looking for some kind of rewording of the conclusion in the answer choices below.

(A) is tempting, but we don’t know what is "generally thought." We only know what the author of this argument thinks.

(B) is a premise underminer. Certainly not what we’re looking for!

(C) is correct. It’s not an exact language match of our conclusion above, but it’s a spirit match. (C) basically says "contrary to previous assumptions, the ice sheet must’ve melted in the past 14 million years." That’s essentially what the author concludes, too, albeit a little more specifically.

(D) gives us background information. Our conclusion is THAT the ice sheet melted, not the result of its melting.

(E) also gives us background information. Remember, the last sentence isn’t necessarily the author’s conclusion!

Hope this helps.

I chose C as the answer, but how come the answer key says E is the answer?! Oh my.........

Oh gosh so sorry. I looked at question 17 not 16! My bad.