PrepTest 103, Section 4, Question 17

Working the answers

• A
  Correct

  This combines our first two steps: giving reasons is part of criticizing the explanation. Then comes the “alternative hypothesis.” We don't need the answer to assign every supporting step its own label.

• B

  The brevetoxin argument has already been introduced in paragraph 3. The last paragraph starts by criticizing it and then offers the pollutant explanation, which isn't subsequently refuted. B doesn't match that sequence.

• C

  The objections are accepted, not rejected. The writer uses them to challenge the brevetoxin account rather than explain it away or defend it.

• D

  This reverses the direction of the evidence. The writer criticizes the original explanation and proposes a different one, rather than reaffirming the original.

• E

  Don't count toxins and call them separate explanations. It can be tempting to count brevetoxin, PCBs, and their combined effects as three theories. But the research team's account already includes both substances: brevetoxin starts the illness, then released PCBs make things worse.

  The writer proposes a different starting point—increased pollutant exposure—while allowing brevetoxin to contribute. That is the second account, not a third theory added after two others have been compared. A's simpler outline captures what actually happens.