Question

For hundreds of years, pearl divers have gathered pearls directly from mollusks on the sea floor. This is an extremely risky profession, exposing the divers to risks of drowning, air embolism, and shark attacks. Still, as long as society demands authentic cultured pearls, these brave divers must continue to risk their lives. Which of the following statements, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion above?

• A. Shark attacks on pearl divers have decreased steadily over the last three decades because of declining shark populations.
• B. Cultured pearls are generally considered more beautiful than those made by artificial means.
• C. Robotic pearl harvesters can gather pearls faster and at less cost than human divers, although they may disturb aquatic communities.
• D. Part of the value of cultured pearls derives from the exotic way in which they are obtained.
• E. With the proper equipment and training, a diver employing scuba gear can harvest three times as many pearls per hour as can a free air diver.

Hint:

When weakening an argument, identify an alternative solution that eliminates the need for the action in question.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1: Understand the argument.
The argument concludes that divers must continue to risk their lives because society demands authentic cultured pearls. The question asks us to identify which statement weakens this conclusion.
Step 2: Analyze each option.
- (A) This option decreases the risk to divers, but it doesn’t address the overall demand for pearls, so it does not weaken the argument significantly.
- (B) This option emphasizes the beauty of cultured pearls, but it doesn’t affect the need for human divers, so it doesn’t weaken the argument.
- (C) This option presents an alternative method of pearl harvesting (robotic harvesters) that is safer and more cost-effective than human diving. This would reduce the need for human divers, directly weakening the argument that they must continue to risk their lives.
- (D) This option explains why cultured pearls are valuable, but it does not impact the need for divers.
- (E) This option provides an efficiency argument for scuba divers, but it does not introduce an alternative to human divers or reduce the risks involved.
Conclusion:
Thus, (C) directly weakens the argument by offering a safer and more efficient alternative to pearl diving, which reduces the necessity for humans to continue risking their lives.