Re: Artificial seaweed made of plastic has been placed on a sect
[#permalink]
08 Jul 2020, 20:08
Statement:
Artificial seaweed made of plastic has been placed on a section of coast in order to reverse beach erosion. The inventor of the seaweed has concluded that the recent buildup of sand on that section of coast proves that the artificial seaweed reverses beach erosion.
We need to find which argument can be the best to defeat the argument of this statement.
Let's analyze the options:
(A) The amount of recent sand buildup on that section of coast was less than had been predicted on the basis of the results obtained in controlled experiments.
if there's an amount, even if it's minimum, the researcher's inventin will still achieve its aim of reducing erosion. Not a solid argument.
(B) Because artificial seaweed would be buried eventually by additional sand deposits on the coast, more artificial seaweed would need to be put in place every four years.
This argument discuss about the effectiveness of a future use of the artificial seaweed.It doesn't question the results or methodology of the inventor's affirmation. Futile argument.
(C) Artificial seaweed of another material which had been previously developed by the inventor failed to add sand to coastline in past trials.
This argument is totally unuseful. The fact that someone failed in the past, it's not a reason to affirm that will fail in the future. Futile argument.
(D) The amount of recent sand buildup on that section of coast is the same as the amount of recent sand buildup on otherwise very similar sections of coast without artificial seaweed.
Really strong argument, critices directly the results of the research.
(E) The amount of recent sand buildup on that section of coast, although considerable, is not yet enough to replace the amount lost during storms on that section of coast in the last twenty years.
Questions the future use of the invention instead of the results or methodology of the research. Unuseful.
ANSWER: D