hard · Enhanced ACT science
Two oceanographers debate the cause of a sudden fish die-off in a coastal bay.
Scientist 1: The die-off was caused by a harmful algal bloom that depleted dissolved oxygen overnight as the algae respired and decomposed, suffocating the fish.
Scientist 2: The die-off was caused by an industrial runoff spill that introduced a toxin directly lethal to fish, unrelated to oxygen levels.
Water samples taken during the die-off showed dissolved oxygen at 1.5 mg/L (well below the 4 mg/L survival threshold for the fish species) and no detectable industrial toxins.
These findings are most consistent with which conclusion?
- Scientist 1's explanation is supported, and Scientist 2's is undermined
- Scientist 2's explanation is supported, and Scientist 1's is undermined
- Both explanations are equally well supported by the data
- Neither explanation can be evaluated without knowing the algae species present
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More Enhanced ACT science practice
- An experimenter tests the effect of different light waveleng… — In this experimental desig
- At any given temperature, the catalyst increases the reaction rate by what factor?
- What is the relationship?
- Which species has a higher population at Year 5?
- Which soil type retains the LEAST amount of water?
- What is the pressure when the volume is 2.0 L?
- If water has a density of 1.00 g/cm³, which liquid will sink in water?
- As the frequency of the waves increases, the wavelength: