Biologists have noted reproductive abnormalities

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Weak12% picked this

   Some of the studies that show that fish recover quickly during shutdowns were funded

   "Some" is almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox. This answer would potentially weaken if we were thinking, "Oh, the source of this research is biased, so we can't trust the results." LSAT doesn't like us to invalidate the potential truth of something just because the source might be biased. But even if we could invalidate "some" of these studies, it sounds like other studies that show the same thing also exist.

   12%
2. B

   Unclear Impact16% picked this

   The rate at which dioxin decomposes varies depending on the conditions to which

   There are a lot of wishy-washy wrong answers that say things "fluctuate, vary". They're too muddled or unspecific for us to know what impact they have. We would need to know something specific about how decomposition is different in the area near the paper mill, in order for this to have impact.

   16%
3. C

   Correct50% picked this

   Normal river currents carry the dioxin present in the river far downstream in

   Why this is right

   The author doesn't think that dioxin is the cause because, in his mind, the fish are recovering (during mill shutdowns) even though they are still being exposed to dioxin (it decomposes very slowly). This answer basically ruins the author's assumption that during a mill shutdown the fish are still being exposed to dioxin.The author was thinking that the dioxin released while the mill was operating would still be immediately downstream of the mill, since it takes dioxin a long time to decompose. But this answer is saying, "no, author, river currents would whisk that dioxin away, so after a few hours of the mill being shut down, the water immediately downstream where these fish live would now be dioxin-free. Thus, if fish are recovering during these periods, it looks like dioxin IS the cause of the abnormalities." Another way to say all this is that we're trying to figure out whether dioxin causes the abnormalities. If there's still dioxin in the water when the mill shuts down, but the fish are somehow recovering, then the author can weaken the idea that dioxin causes abnormalities because this would be Cause w/o Effect (the dioxin is present but the abnormalities are not). But if we get to say that the dioxin is transported away, so there isn't dioxin in the water when the fish are recovering, then we can strengthen the idea that dioxin causes abnormalities because this would be No Cause, No Effect (when the dioxin is absent, the abnormalities are absent).

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   50%
4. D

   Too Weak16% picked this

   Some of the fish did not recover rapidly from the physiological changes that were induced by the

   This is saying that "at least one fish" didn't recover rapidly. That's way too weak to do anything. That one fish may still have recovered (just not rapidly). Either way, one fish that doesn't recover rapidly isn't really strengthening or weakening the idea of whether dioxin is the cause.

   16%
5. E

   No Impact6% picked this

   The connection between hormone concentrations and reproductive abnormalities is not

   This is also very weak. Saying something is not thoroughly understood still leaves room for the idea that it's pretty well understood. And it also seems like if we're saying the science is murky, when it comes to dioxin → weird hormones → reproductive abnormalities, that would probably just help this author impugn the idea that dioxin is the cause.

   6%