consider this claim: scuba diving is better than snorkeling for experiencing the undersea world. now…

consider this claim: scuba diving is better than snorkeling for experiencing the undersea world. now consider how someone might argue against this. which sentence presents the strongest and most reasonable counter - claim to the above claim? snorkeling is better because it gives people a taste of what they could see if they were ever to go scuba diving. scuba divers can become dizzy if they surface too quickly, so scuba diving is not a good way to enjoy nature. scuba diving produces loud bubbles that scare fish away, but snorkeling is silent, so you can get closer to the fish.

consider this claim: scuba diving is better than snorkeling for experiencing the undersea world. now consider how someone might argue against this. which sentence presents the strongest and most reasonable counter - claim to the above claim? snorkeling is better because it gives people a taste of what they could see if they were ever to go scuba diving. scuba divers can become dizzy if they surface too quickly, so scuba diving is not a good way to enjoy nature. scuba diving produces loud bubbles that scare fish away, but snorkeling is silent, so you can get closer to the fish.

Answer

Brief Explanations:

The first counter - claim just mentions snorkeling as a preview of scuba diving, which is not a strong argument against scuba diving being better. The second counter - claim about dizziness when surfacing is more about a safety issue rather than a direct comparison of the experience. The third counter - claim directly addresses an advantage of snorkeling (silence) over scuba diving (loud bubbles scaring fish away) in terms of the underwater experience.

Answer:

Scuba diving produces loud bubbles that scare fish away, but snorkeling is silent, so you can get closer to the fish.