Please follow the rules for posting: using the tags to identify properly every question. This way you will help a lot future students
Back to your question.
This is a strengthen question, according to our question stem. That say, you need to find an answer choice hat reinforce the conclusion. And confirm what our argument are saying.
This is our conclusion in the argument above
Quote:
Therefore, since dolphins rid their bodies of the compounds rapidly once exposure ceases, their mortality rate should decline rapidly if such boat paints are banned.
We must find the answers that make this statement stronger. You can follow mainly 2 strategies: or POE or pre-thinking reading the argument itself.
A- The levels of the compounds typically used in boat paints today are lower than they were in boat paints manufactured a decade ago.
A comparison between two eras f production is out of scope
B- In high concentrations, the compounds are toxic to many types of marine animals.
This is a generalization about most of the marine animalsC- The compounds break down into harmless substances after a few months of exposure to water or air.
This is the right answer: the water in which the compound is present, break down after a certain amount of time. As such, the dolphins are not in contact with the substance. Hence, they are not affectedD- High tissue levels of the compounds have recently been found in some marine animals, but there is no record of any of those animals dying in unusually large numbers recently.
Again: a comparison and its concentration in different animals it is not in our argumentE- The compounds do not leach out of the boat paint if the paint is applied exactly in accordance with the manufacturer’s directions.
The process through wich the paint is well fixed to the boats by manufacturers are not in our argumentDo not hesitate to ask if something is unclear