Tricky CR : weaken question

[Everything OR Nothing]

An unusually severe winter occurred in Europe after the continent was blanketed by a blue haze resulting from the eruption of the Laki Volcano in the European republic of Iceland in the summer of 1984. Thus, it is evident that major eruptions cause the atmosphere to become cooler than it would be otherwise.

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

(A) The cooling effect triggered by volcanic eruptions in 1985 was counteracted by an unusual warming of Pacific waters.
(B) There is a strong statistical link between volcanic eruptions and the severity of the rainy season in India.
(C) A few months after El Chichn's large eruption in April 1982, air temperatures throughout the region remained higher than expected, given the long-term weather trends.
(D) The climatic effects of major volcanic eruptions can temporarily mask the general warming trend resulting from an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
(E) Three months after an early springtime eruption in South America during the late 19th century, sea surface temperatures near the coast began to fall.

The OA:C

(C) A few months after El Chichn's large eruption in April 1982, air temperatures throughout the region remained higher than expected, given the long-term weather trends. Actually this option also weaken the statement but this is about a particular valcano.
(D) The climatic effects of major volcanic eruptions can temporarily mask the general warming trend resulting from an excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is my choice...This option states that cooling after Volcanic eruption is a temporary.

where Am i going wrong??
please explain why C is correct?

[RonPurewal]

You're trying to contradict the fact that eruptions cause cooling.

Choice C says that, after a certain eruption, there wasn't cooling.

(D)
This is my choice...This option states that cooling after Volcanic eruption is a temporary.

... so there's cooling. So, this choice doesn't weaken the hypothesis at all.

[RonPurewal]

Is this actually a GMAT Prep problem?

Basically, this problem boils down to this:
* "Weaken the idea that eruptions make the air cold."
* C: "After this eruption, the air wasn't cold; in fact, it was unexpectedly hot."
That's just so ... direct. It's weakening X by saying, in effect, "not X".

Do you have proof that this problem is from GMAT Prep?

Thanks.

[b.omolehinwa]

Hello Ron,
Yes it is a GMAT Prep problem. It appeared as question 1 in the verbal section of my practice test today (GMAT Prep Exam 1).

Regards

[RonPurewal]

Hello Ron,
Yes it is a GMAT Prep problem. It appeared as question 1 in the verbal section of my practice test today (GMAT Prep Exam 1).

Regards

Interesting. They're not usually so direct.

[akhilesh.makhena]

Hi Ron,

In option "C", I assumed that "higher than expected" temperature doesn't mean that the atmosphere is not cool. It could be that the expectation was of way too cooler and the eruption caused the temperature moderately cool.

Could you please help me know whether I am assuming too much or there is fallacy in my approach.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

In option "C", I assumed that "higher than expected" temperature doesn't mean that the atmosphere is not cool. It could be that the expectation was of way too cooler and the eruption caused the temperature moderately cool.

Could you please help me know whether I am assuming too much or there is fallacy in my approach.

What other answer choice did you think was better?

If you're going to argue against one answer choice, you need to be prepared to argue in favor of another answer choice. There are no problems with 5 incorrect answers.

[RonPurewal]

Also, if your reasoning on a strengthening/weakening problem starts with "It could be that...", or with "Maybe...", then STOP right there.

You can't hypothesize something completely random——especially if it's something that's much more likely to be false than to be true (i.e., your hypothetical in the last post)——and then proceed to build an argument on it!

[akhilesh.makhena]

Thanks Ron, you are right.

Thanks for correcting me.

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[HannieSu]

Can anyone tell me why A is wrong? it seems weakening the argument by saying that could not happen because it's counteracted.

[RonPurewal]

choice A says that there WAS, in fact, a "cooling effect triggered by volcanic eruptions". this confirms exactly what the argument says, so it's the opposite of what you want here.

whether that effect is counteracted (by something else) has no bearing on whether it is a real effect in the first place.

[RonPurewal]

analogy:
let's say the claim is joblessness causes depression.

choice A translates to something like "joe became depressed when he lost his job last year, but then he took an antidepressant medication that relieved his depression."
... clearly this doesn't weaken the claim above. in fact, if the depression CAN be "relieved", then it must be a thing! (likewise, if there actually IS a "cooling effect" that can be "counteracted", then, well, the cooling effect is real.)

[SamridhiA947]

Hi Ron

I agree with Akhilesh that C doesnt imply about atmosphere being cooler.
I think A is more plausible than C. The question is whether the atmosphere will be cool or not after the eruptions. A says the cooling effect was counteracted by "unusual" warming of Pacific waters. Therefore, the net outcome was that atmosphere was not cooler.
Whereas C merely says that the temperatures were higher than expected, which means atmosphere could be slightly less cooler than expected.

[RonPurewal]

I agree with Akhilesh that C doesnt imply about atmosphere being cooler.
I think A is more plausible than C. The question is whether the atmosphere will be cool or not after the eruptions. A says the cooling effect was counteracted by "unusual" warming of Pacific waters. Therefore, the net outcome was that atmosphere was not cooler.

choice A says that there WAS, in fact, a "cooling effect triggered by volcanic eruptions". you mentioned this too (in blue).

the point is that the cooling effect exists. this is true regardless of whether it is counteracted or diminished by some other effect.

this confirms exactly what the argument says, so it's the opposite of what you want here.

see my analogy above (joblessness, depression, etc.)