In 1980 there was growing concern

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: where most flourish1% picked this

   most species of plant and animal life flourish in warm climates rather than in

   This answer is like saying, "I don't believe there's an opioid epidemic facing rural America, because most Americans live in urban areas." This answer has nothing to do with the author's evidence (global ozone levels).

   1%
2. B

   Strengthens, if anything19% picked this

   decreases in the amount of atmospheric ozone over the Antarctic ice cap tend to be

   This answer would help the author support her view that there's nothing to worry about. Global ozone is constant. You may have just been looking at the polar ice cap ozone layer during its seasonal dip, but it's just a seasonal dip, not a permanent new low.

   19%
3. C

   No Impact4% picked this

   decreases in the amount of atmospheric ozone were of little concern

   It wouldn't change the argument if people in the 1930's were also worried about decreased ozone, or if this is the first time it's ever happened. We're trying to assess whether the government's current statistics show that there's currently nothing to worry about.

   4%
4. D

   Correct64% picked this

   quantities of atmospheric ozone shifted away from the polar caps, correspondingly increasing ozone levels

   Why this is right

   This takes the classic Weakening form of showing how the author's Evidence is compatible with the opposite of her Conclusion. We'd use this answer to say, "Yes, global ozone is constant, but ... there's still reason to worry about UV pouring in through thinning ozone over the polar regions. When ozone thins out there, it travels to other parts of the atmosphere. So, yes, the total amount of ozone is constant, but it's gotten blobby. It's unnecessarily thick in some areas but dangerously thin in the polar regions; thin enough to let in UV that will harm marine life." I think this correct answer would have made just as much sense on a conventional Weaken question stem that asks us to weaken the argument. But it is showing that announcing "global ozone totals" is not relevant evidence, if we're actually having a conversation about a localized part of the ozone over the Antarctic. Turns out that the ozone layer is not uniform / homogenous, so global realities do not necessarily describe local realities.

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

   64%
5. E

   No Impact12% picked this

   even where the amount of atmospheric ozone is normal, some ultraviolet light reaches

   Yes, we know that some UV always gets through, but we're worried that "so much harmful UV radiation" is reaching Earth where the ozone layer has decreased in Antarctica that it will rise to damaging levels. When you get a dental x-ray, if you declined the x-ray blanket they use to cover your heart by saying, "Oh, I get hit by x-rays whenever I go through security at the airport", the dentist might say, "True, but this is a stronger x-ray, and the effects of x-ray damage are cumulative, so you would be wise to minimize the amount of exposure you get to x-rays".

   12%