After studying the Earth's climate changes and the 10-year cycle of solar flares for 30 years, researchers have discovered that increased solar flare activity often precedes changes in ocean currents that influence global climate. This suggests that climatologists could enhance their climate predictions using this data.

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

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

A) Climatologists have access to more advanced technology for climate modeling than they did 30 years ago.

B) Researchers can prove that solar flare activity has a direct impact on the Earth's climate.

C) Other factors besides solar flare activity have historically allowed climatologists to predict climate changes that are associated with solar flare activity.

Correct

D) Researchers have not yet figured out why solar flare activity follows a 10-year cycle.

E) It has been shown that changes in ocean currents lead to predictable climate variations.

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 increased solar flare activity can help improve climate predictions. To weaken this argument, we need to show that there are other reliable methods for predicting climate changes that do not rely on solar flare activity. Option C states that other factors besides solar flare activity have historically…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

RafaelMay 1, 2025

Good question

PrabhaankFeb 13, 2025

finally understood this

AnkitaJan 3, 2025

Thank for sharing!!!

pranavOct 13, 2024

Amazing

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.