Abiogenic Theory of Oil

Answer choices

1. A

   Contradicted: derived from9% picked this

   Although the new abiogenic theory about the origin of oil is derived from the conventional biogenic theory, it suggests new types

   The abiogenic theory is not at all derived from the conventional view. They start from pretty opposite precepts. Biogenic: oil comes from organic matter (dead life forms) Abiogenic: no, it doesn't. it doesn't come from biological stuff. it comes from hydrocarbon gases in the mantle.

   9%
2. B

   Wrong Emphasis Too Strong: minimal level1% picked this

   The small number of drilling companies that have responded to the new abiogenic theory about the origin of oil reflects the minimal level of

   There's no good reason for our main point answer to be centered around "the small number of drilling companies". They were not the main character of the passage. The passage's main character was the question of "where does oil come from" and the New answer of "maybe it comes from hydrocarbon gases that seep up from the mantle through cracks in the crust". This answer makes it sound like the author's main goal in writing this was to disparage the legitimacy of this new perspective, "The fact that so few people are acting on this new idea tells you how far-fetched it is". Our author is way more neutral, and, if anything, seems curious about whether this abiogenic theory may be correct.

   1%
3. C

   Too Strong2% picked this

   Although the new abiogenic theory about the origin of oil fails to explain several enigmas about oil reservoirs, it is superior

   Too Strong: superior Out of Scope: several enigmas Our author doesn't have a strong enough opinion on whether biogenic vs. abiogenic is the correct origin story of oil for us to support this answer. The author really never reveals any opinion or preference. The final paragraph says, "If this new theory is correct, there are interesting ramifications", but that's no indication that she thinks this new theory is correct. Also, "fails to explain several enigmas about oil reservoirs" doesn't match up with anything. There is one central enigma: where do oil reservoirs come from?

   2%
4. D

   Correct85% picked this

   Although it has yet to receive either support or refutation by data gathered from a drilling project, the new abiogenic theory about the origin

   Why this is right

   The main clause is that "the new theory offers a plausible alternative to the conventional one". This nicely accords with our Old / New framework. The fact that these are "theories about the origin of oil" accords with our Present Debate framework. The introductory clause is not really important (it's probably there to make us like this answer a little bit less), but it is saying something accurate: the new drilling project hasn't gone far enough to be judged as support / refutation. Saying that abiogenic is a plausible alternative doesn't imply that it's more plausible. It just implies that the author takes it seriously. We can tell from the final paragraph that the author takes it seriously, since she talks through possible ramifications "if the abiogenic theory is correct". And the final sentence acknowledges that there is reason for the Swedes to be encouraged that the abiogenic theory is correct: Fueling their optimism further is the fact that ....

   Skill tested: Main Point · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   85%
5. E

   Too Strong: broad acceptance3% picked this

   Having answered objections about higher pressures in the earth’s core, proponents of the new abiogenic theory have gained broad acceptance for their

   There's no indication anywhere in the passage that the abiogenic theory has been broadly accepted by the scientific community. This answer also places way too much spotlight on one small objection (the objection was actually that temperatures were too high, and the abiogenic proponents answered that objection by saying that higher pressure would offset the high temperatures).

   3%