...
do you have a question?
if so, please clarify. thanks.
RonPurewal Wrote:george.kourdin Wrote:somewhat confused....
the crux of the argument is that this method = (the water in the solar pond was first made more saline through evaporation and then diluted by a rapid inflow of fresh water) "allows for effective control of nuisance algae", correct?
pls correct me if i am wrong, but it seems like both (C) and (D) provide alternative methods for the death of the algae. the reason why C>D is that D focuses on the algae that sank to the bottom of the pond. For that to happen, the method described in the passage (inflow causes algae to sink) has had to have worked, right? Thus, it seems somewhat incomplete and not nearly as strong of a counter-argument as (C).
If that is not the reason why C>D, can someone please explain.
thanks
(d) provides an alternative explanation, but it's still a result of the method described. i.e., the intermediate steps of the process are debated, but it's still clear that the original method is ultimately responsible for killing the algae. therefore, (d) doesn't undermine the conclusions at all.
ZHENYUM85 Wrote:Isn't (c) the same? Part of the method is diluting the pond with a rapid inflow of fresh water , without it, how could there be "microorganisms'' in (c)? (c) is also a result of the method described.