Self-study
The current theory about earthquakes holds that they are caused by adjoining plates of rock sliding past each other; the plates are pressed together until powerful forces overcome the resistance. ██ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██████ ██████ ████████ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ████████ █████████ ████████████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The current theory about earthquakes contains an unsolved mystery. What’s the mystery? The theory predicts that earthquakes should generate a lot of heat, but no earthquake-related temperature increases have been observed.
Identify Conclusion
The author’s conclusion is that the current theory leaves at least one aspect of earthquakes mysterious, in that the theory’s predictions don’t match the data: “at least one thing remains mysterious on this theory.”
2.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████████
a
No increases in ███████████ ████ ████ ████████ █████████ ████████████
This drops the qualifier "unrelated to weather" and as a result misstates the stimulus. We were told no weather-unrelated temperature increases have been detected. That leaves open the possibility that weather-related temperature increases following earthquakes have been detected. (A) is a broader claim than what the author actually said.
Even setting that aside, this would be part of the support, not the conclusion. The author uses the absence of detected heat to back up the claim that the theory is mysterious. The absence of heat is evidence, not the point.
b
The current theory ████ ███ █████ ███████ ██████████ █████
This is the best paraphrase of the conclusion. "The current theory does not fully explain earthquake data" is another way of saying that something about the theory remains unexplained, which is what the author means by "at least one thing remains mysterious on this theory."
c
No one will ████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███████████ ███
The author makes a present-tense claim about a current gap. (C) makes a forever-claim about the limits of human knowledge. Those aren't the same. Maybe further research locates the missing heat, or replaces the current theory with a better one that doesn't predict heat in the first place. The author leaves that door open.
d
Earthquakes produce enormous ███████ ██ ████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ███████████
This treats a conditional prediction as an asserted fact. The author says heat should be produced if the current theory is true. That's a prediction the theory makes, not a claim the author is committing to. In fact, the author might believe the missing heat is evidence the theory is wrong, in which case the heat doesn't actually exist.
Even if the author did believe earthquakes produce undetected heat, this would still be part of the support for the mystery claim, not the conclusion itself.
e
Contrary to the ███████ ███████ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████
This goes further than the author goes. The author says one thing remains mysterious. That's a much weaker claim than "the theory is wrong." A theory can have an unexplained gap and still turn out to be correct. The author isn't rejecting the plate-sliding theory; the author is just noting that it leaves something unaccounted for.