Q16

[skapur777]

I picked C and my interpretation was this:

B, D, and E were instantly ruled out.

For A, I felt like the author did not accept the data from the experiment, the experiment being the original P. brevis theory and the data being the evidence. I agree that the author questions the conclusion but he also questions the evidence and does not accept it, in fact he refutes it pretty hard.

For C, I felt like the author revised the original recipe (theory) by substituting different facts for the original ones...but i realize this is bad because of the word modern and the 'cook' (author) makes his own theory.

From this, I should have just picked A since the others are so wrong. But what is the deal with A?

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

Be careful to distinguish between evidence and conclusion. The author rejects the researchers' conclusion that P. Brevis caused the die-off, but where do you see him rejecting the evidence? Actually, his conclusion, that PCB exposure was the more likely cause, is based on some of the same evidence:

"PCB poisoning is known to impair functioning of the immune system and liver and to cause skin lesions; all of these problems were observed in the diseased animals."

So the author doesn't dispute any evidence, he simply draws a different conclusion (based partly by mentioning additional evidence).

Does that make sense? I'm interested in what you meant when you said the author refutes the researchers' evidence "pretty hard." What were you referring to?

[skapur777]

The research team argument is:

Conclusion: brevetoxin poisoning was the most likely cause of the illness that killed the dolphins.

Evidence:
1. Unusual bloom of P. brevis
2. emaciated state and releasing of PCBs

In lines 29-31, they say the researchers 'believe' brevetoxin accumulated in the tissue of fish that were ingested by dolphins. That's not exactly evidence though.

And the emaciated state part they don't explicitly state is connected to Brevetoxin...what threw me off was in lines 47-48 where the author says that specific effects of brevetoxin on dolphins is unknown. I figured that since the researchers attributed the emaciated state as evidence of the effects of brevetoxin and the author says that we don't know the effects of brevetoxin, then he is challenging the evidence that the emaciated state proves brevetoxin poisoning?

but now I realize they are accepting the evidence of the emaciated state but giving an alternate explanation of it.

guh, im a chump.

[jewels0602]

I had it down to A and B and initially I picked A, but upon review B proved to be too strong of a contender and I don't like it.

I chose B the second time around because the author adds other observations (on top of the already accepted observations from the third paragraph) but then supports another (astronomer's) theory.
Also, the author of the passage clearly supports one explanation over the other and we get that from B, whereas in A we don't get that, we just get that the teacher questions the conclusion. I thought this made B even stronger.

Any help on this would be REALLY appreciated, thanks!!

EDIT: Is A the answer because the question specifically asks about research in third paragraph but B just addresses another theory (theory in 4th paragraph)??

[ohthatpatrick]

I think the real problem with (B) is just the another astronomer's theory.

Who is the other astronomer, by analogy, in the actual passage? (B) is saying that the author rejects the research team's conclusion and instead favors someone else's conclusion.

But there is no someone else. The author herself proposes the alternative explanation.

If (B) had said "An astronomer provides additional observations to support an alternative theory", it would be pretty safe.

However, does our author actually provide additional observations? I think we need to read this word pretty literally in the scientific sense of observations, meaning 'empirical data' ... does the author introduce new facts about what happened?

It seems like the author just advances a hypothesis, a guess, a theory ... a story that WOULD accord with all the facts. But it's speculation, as seen from line 54's "PERHAPS from offshore dumping?"

I agree that (A) is frustrating because it doesn't seem to fully capture the fact that the author NOT ONLY questions the research team's conclusion but also proposes an alternative conclusion.

But it's better to pick an answer that is all right, though perhaps not as complete as we'd like, over an answer that has any broken parts (such as "another astronomer" or "additional observations").

The headline of P4 is that the author says the research team's "explanation is not entirely plausible" and lists three ways in which the team's conclusion doesn't really add up.

"Questioning a conclusion" doesn't necessarily mean you supply an alternative conclusion, but it's certainly compatible with having done so.

[yeun2]

Why not D? The author claims that the researchers' conclusion is wrong, which is analogous to an illness being misdiagnosed, and provides an alternative explanation, which can be seen as prescribing a medication.

[ohthatpatrick]

The alternative explanation, in this metaphor, would be THE CORRECT diagnosis, not a prescription for how to solve it.

If one doctor says
"Your sickness is from brevetoxin poisoning"
and the other doctor says,
"No. That's a misdiagnosis. Your sickness is really from PCB poisoning."

The patient now has a new diagnosis (a new explanation for his condition). But the patient has not been prescribed anything to cure his sickness.

[cleoz490]

Thank you for the explanation! I was trying to understand the argument in its abstract form, but I often found myself neglect important information and end up choosing the wrong answers. Is there any particular thing I should pay attention to during abstraction? Any advice on how to tackle those analogy problems?