A significant volcanic eruption occurred in the Pacific region, leading to a thick cloud cover that affected weather patterns across North America in the winter of 1990. This suggests that volcanic eruptions can lead to colder temperatures in the atmosphere.

Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

A significant warming trend in the Arctic was observed in the same year, which may have influenced temperatures across North America.

There is a documented correlation between volcanic activity and increased rainfall in Southeast Asia.

Following the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, temperatures in the region were higher than anticipated based on historical data.

The cooling effects of volcanic eruptions can obscure the long-term warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Correct

Several months after a volcanic eruption in the Caribbean in the early 20th century, ocean temperatures in the region began to rise.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Preview

Official Explanation

Official

The argument states that volcanic eruptions can lead to colder temperatures in the atmosphere. To weaken this argument, we need evidence that suggests volcanic eruptions do not necessarily lead to cooling or that other factors may play a more significant role. Option D states that 'The cooling effects of volcanic…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

DibyashreeApr 12, 2025

Greatt

PatrickApr 7, 2025

Any shortcuts for solving this faster?

KARTIKFeb 24, 2024

Thankss

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can identify the option that most undermines an argument's conclusion.

Common trap

Choosing an irrelevant objection or one that attacks the premise rather than the reasoning.