RC Question 16 Explanation
DISCUSSION: This is partly a trick question. You need to reread the start of the fourth paragraph, where the author critiques the research described in the third paragraph.
The author does a few things. First, the cause (a massive algal bloom) occurs without the effect in the gulf of Mexico.
Second, the timing of the algal bloom was wrong, meaning that the effect happened without the proposed cause.
Third, the author points out that we don’t know the effects of brevetoxin.
The author never says that any of the researchers’ facts are wrong. But the author adds new facts that make us doubt the researchers’ conclusion.
___________
- CORRECT. See discussion. The author adds new facts that make us question the researchers’ conclusion.
- The author was not supporting the researchers theory. He disagreed with them.
- The author isn’t revising a past theory, he’s critiquing a current theory.
- A prescription is a solution. The author hasn’t said what we should do, and neither did the researchers.
- The author is attacking the researchers’ theory, not reproducing it.
How does B not indicate that the author disagrees with the researchers? With the author pointing out other considerations, eventually leading to “an alternative hypothesis. . . ” isn’t the author bringing forward another theory?
B says that the additional observations SUPPORT the original theory.
But the author does the opposite. They bring up new facts to show why the researchers’ conclusion does NOT hold up. The author ends up offering a different hypothesis after arguing that the original one is flawed.
So it’s much closer to “your data is fine, but I don’t buy your conclusion” (A) than “here’s more evidence that your theory is right” (B).
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.