Passage Summary: Someone argues that cleaning up a harbor is pointless because the lobsters there are harvested for food before the pollution-related diseases can actually kill them.

Conclusion: The proposal to move sewage offshore to protect lobsters is a waste of time.

Reasoning: Lobsters in the harbor are usually caught or die before the gill diseases caused by sewage have enough time to actually harm them.

Analysis: The author assumes that if the lobsters aren't dying from the disease, the sewage isn't a problem for the industry. To weaken this, we need to find a reason why the sewage is still harmful even if it doesn't kill the lobsters outright. For example, if the sewage makes the lobsters toxic for humans to eat, the proposal is definitely not 'pointless.' Look for an answer that introduces a negative consequence of the sewage that occurs regardless of the lobsters' lifespan.