LR Question 8 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Scientists conjecture that certain microbes consume organic…
QUESTION TYPE: Most Strongly Supported
FACTS:
- Scientists think that microbes eat organic molecules in shale.
- This takes oxygen out of the atmosphere and adds carbon dioxide.
- Evidence says carbon dioxide increases global warming.
- Scientists think the microbes reproduce faster at high temperatures.
ANALYSIS: I couldn’t do much to summarize this stimulus. There are four facts. Think about how they work together. It’s helpful to use real world knowledge of global warming to think through this.
The question stem asks what will happen if the conjectures are true. If the statements are true, then microbes cause global warming and are caused by global warming since microbes reproduce faster with higher temperature.
___________
- We have no idea how many sediments and organic molecules there are. Maybe there are more than enough to last for decades.
- Umm….all animals produce carbon dioxide, when we breath. We have no evidence that animals reproduce faster with temperature.
- CORRECT. This seems likely. Global warming will increase the activity of the microbes, and the microbes will release carbon dioxide and increase global warming.
- The stimulus was three sentences. There’s no reason to believe that was enough space to tell us everything about the microbes. They might affect other gases as well.
- We know the microbes produce carbon dioxide. We have no idea how much they produce.
More Resources for Most Strongly Supported Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Most Strongly Supported questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers most strongly supported questions.
Trying to get more clarity on these type of inference questions…It seems like for answer choice A and C there’s only one sentence that supports each. How are you supposed to say which is more supported? I initially chose A, because it says that activity will diminish when the molecules are depleted. Not that they are depleted OR depleting but IF they do, the microbes activity will diminish. We are told that microbes consume these molecules so this is supported. We can assume (as others have) that maybe that won’t happen, maybe the microbes will eat something else, but we still have to MAKE that assumption. For C, you could make the assumption that the carbon dioxide that is produced is negligible and cancels itself out. For both you have to make assumptions to prove they are wrong / not supported. I’m confused. Help me out please.
When it comes to most strongly supported questions like this one, we don’t have to make the assumption that opposing possibilities will occur, we just need to show that there’s no evidence in the stimulus that those possibilities will not occur. So, looking at (A), the stimulus doesn’t rule out the possibility that the microbes’ activity will stay the same and not decline. Maybe there are enough organic molecules in exposed shale and other sediments that even if they are continuously depleted over time, the microbes’ activity will never diminish — let alone “soon diminish”.
Re: (C), we just need to look at the exact letter of the stimulus. Global warming will be “exacerbated” by the microbes — “exacerbated” here could mean anything from significantly worsened to barely worsened at all, it includes all levels of exacerbating that aren’t zero. We’re told in the stimulus that carbon dioxide promotes global warming, and these microbes produce carbon dioxide, so no matter how tiny and seemingly insignificant that amount is, it falls under the umbrella of “exacerbating”. By saying the amount could be “negligible and cancel itself out”, you’re actually contradicting the letter of the stimulus.
Hmm… This one is tricky for me. I understand the reasoning, but it seems like a big leap to say that these microbes will exacerbate global warming simply because they will produce more CO2 as a result of the planet getting hotter. We have no idea if the quantities of CO2 they produce is significant… It seems just as uncertain as A. Any reason that it’s less uncertain than A?
You’re right to be weary of answer choices that make claims as strong as this one does. But, to “exacerbate” a problem just means to make it worse. Whether or not the problem is worsened significantly isn’t relevant to this answer choice. We’re told in the stimulus that carbon dioxide is created by the activity of the microbes and that carbon dioxide “promotes global warming”. So, if we stick to the letter of the stimulus, (C) is the best answer choice.
I see… In that sense it is better supported then A. Thanks!