Q24

[muriella]

For this weaken question, I hesitated for a long time on (C) because it just seemed to offer rather weak sauce/weak language with the "There are areas", which I interpreted to mean as little as two areas where there might be the presence of a shallow descent--> no quakes.

If (C) has said, "There is an area" instead of the plural, would that have been sufficient to rule it out as a weakener?

In the end I picked (C) over (D) which seemed like it could be consistent with the new proposal by the scientists. Was that a correct interpretation of why (D) was wrong?

Thanks in advance...

[ohthatpatrick]

I would start by reminding myself about what the new proposal was:

plates coming at each other (opposite directions) ... subduction zone slow moving relative to mantle .... shallow angle of descent = BIG FRICTION, BIG QUAKES

one plate chasing another (same direction) ... subduction zone fast moving relative to mantle ... steep angle of descent = LOW FRICTION, FEWER QUAKES


A correct weaken answer will probably give us some mismatch there.

A) fewer quakes, same direction (consistent)

B) no quakes, plates collide (this kinda refers to neither / both)

C) shallow angle, fewer quakes (mismatch!) Looks like this could be it.

D) okay ... ? This doesn't really have anything special to do with the new proposal.

E) steep angle, few quakes (consistent)


Looks like (A) and (E) matched the proposal, (B) and (D) had nothing to do with the proposal, and (C) is our winning mismatch.

I see your concern with the strength of language. Had it said "an area" rather than "areas", it would have less impact, but it would still have impact.

Usually correct answers on STR/WEAK are strongly worded, but they don't have to be. If none of the answers weaken at all, and (C) weakens it by a tiny amount, it would still be the answer that "most weakens".