LSAT 146 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q24

RC Question 24 Explanation

DISCUSSION: Long term effects are mentioned in lines 34-41: CFCs stay in the atmosphere a long time and would be expected to continue destroying ozone even after CFC emissions ceased.

So, the best support for this “continued destruction” hypothesis would be seeing further destruction of ozone even after the Montreal protocol banned CFC emissions.

___________

1. CORRECT. This is consistent with lines 34-41, and supports the idea that destruction will continue due to CFCs that already are present in the atmosphere.
    
   No other cause of ozone depletion was mentioned, so there’s no clear reason ozone would continue to disappear if Molina and Rowland were wrong about CFCs staying in the stratosphere.
2. So? The scientists didn’t say only CFCs rise. (The issue is whether chemicals cause damage in the stratosphere. Mere presence doesn’t matter.)
3. This sounds persuasive, but isn’t. This could mean: “Chlorine reacts 2% more violently than five other chemicals do”. That’s not powerful!
4. This sounds persuasive, but it’s just a shift in belief. We needs facts that support Molina and Rowland.
5. So? Molina and Rowland were talking about the mechanisms behind ozone destruction. They weren’t making predictions about whether countries would comply with the Montreal Protocol.