In 1988, a significant percentage

Answer choices

1. A

   Unclear Impact12% picked this

   The large majority of Scottish seals that died were either old

   Because this idea isn't expressed comparatively, we don't know if this is something different or similar for the Baltic seal population. As we've all now seen from COVID, when a viral infection is afflicting a population, most of the deaths will be among the sicker and more elderly, so we would assume that most of the death of the Baltic seals were also old or unhealthy. More importantly, this answer isn't giving us any sense of what's causing the difference in death rates. If we knew that most of the Scottish deaths were the elderly while most of the Baltic deaths were not, that might help a little in terms of suggesting that there must have been something additional (like pollutants) going on in the Baltic situation in order to explain the higher death rate among a less vulnerable population.

   12%
2. B

   No Impact13% picked this

   The strain of virus that killed Scottish seals overwhelms impaired immune systems much more quickly than it

   This seems to say something so obviously true to common sense that it's like it's saying nothing. "The virus overwhelms impaired immune systems much more quickly than it does healthy immune systems". Cool, that's not news. That's not something that's a specific quirk of the virus in the Scottish sea. Every sickness will overwhelm an impaired immune system much more quickly than it would a healthy immune system.

   13%
3. C

   No Impact3% picked this

   There were slight fluctuations in the levels of pollutants found in the blood

   There are a lot of wrong answers that have been written for Strengthen and Weaken that have this sort of incredibly weak, wishy-washy style: - things fluctuate - differences exist I can't figure out how "slight fluctuations" would make this a stronger, more compelling argument. None of us were assuming that every single Baltic seal's pollutant level was identical, so it feels like we're being told nothing to learn that different seals had different levels.

   3%
4. D

   Unclear Impact14% picked this

   The kinds of pollutants found in the Baltic Sea are significantly different from those that have been detected in the waters

   This could potentially strengthen (or weaken) depending on whether the pollutants found in the Baltic are more injurious or less injurious to seals. All this answer says is that they're "different", so it's not clearly helping or hurting. If we knew that Baltic pollutants were much more harsh on marine mammals than are Scottish pollutants, that would strengthen. But if we knew that Baltic ones were much more benign, that would weaken.

   14%
5. E

   Correct58% picked this

   Among marine mammals other than seals, the death rate due to viral diseases in 1988 was higher in the Baltic Sea than

   Why this is right

   This increases the plausibility of the Author's Explanation by pointing to something that we would predict, if the author's hypothesis were right. If the author is right, that pollutants were worse in the area of the Baltic seals and that's why they experienced a higher death rate, then those pollutants would presumably be affecting other marine mammals in the area as well, since they all swim in the same ocean, and since we're told that "pollutants are known to impair marine mammals' ability to fight off viral infection". By seeing that other marine mammals in the Baltic are also dying at a higher rate, it seems like whatever is causing the higher death rate is something common to sea creatures in the Baltic sea. Obviously, it could still be some sort of alternate explanation like "the virus is just a more intense strain in the Baltic", but these answers don't have to be perfect. It adds some plausibility to the author's story that pollutants are to blame if other animals who we know are also affected by these pollutants are also experiencing higher death rates. In the language of nerds, this answer provides More Cause, More Effect data points to add plausibility.

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

   58%