After studying the ocean currents and the 7-year cycle of volcanic eruptions for 30 years, researchers have concluded that increased volcanic activity leads to changes in ocean temperatures that influence marine ecosystems. This suggests that oceanographers could enhance their predictions of marine biodiversity based on this finding.

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

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

A) Oceanographic predictions have become more accurate in recent years due to technological advancements.

B) Researchers can prove that volcanic eruptions have a direct impact on ocean temperatures.

C) Other factors besides volcanic activity have historically allowed oceanographers to predict changes in marine biodiversity.

Correct

D) Scientists have not yet understood the mechanisms behind the 7-year volcanic eruption cycle.

E) It has been shown that stable ocean temperatures lead to stable marine ecosystems.

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 suggests that increased volcanic activity affects ocean temperatures, which in turn influences marine ecosystems, leading to improved predictions by oceanographers. To weaken this argument, we need to introduce evidence that shows there are other factors that can also predict changes in marine biodiversity. Option C states that 'Other factors besides…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

MacroFeb 20, 2025

thanks for posting

SongMay 22, 2024

Great explanation

PrachiDec 25, 2024

Can you explain more?

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.