Self-study
Support Each major earthquake in this region has been preceded by a series of minor tremors. █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ███████████ █ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ █ █████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███████
Here’s What You Probably Need: (B) vs. (E)
If you’re looking for the reason (B) is wrong and (E) is right, it’s that (B)’s Premise 1 is left-right flipped compared to Premise 1 in the stimulus and (E).
All three arguments are about how one thing (let’s call it the harbinger) comes before another thing (let’s call it the doom). In all three arguments, Premise 2 and the Conclusion say “the harbinger just happened, therefore the doom is gonna happen”:
Stimulus: Recent Tremors (harbinger), therefore Earthquake (doom)
(B): Winter Snowfall (harbinger), therefore River Overflow (doom)
(E): Wildlife Infections (harbinger), therefore Human Outbreak (doom)
The only difference lies in Premise 1. Behold (B)’s left-right flippage:
Stimulus: Earthquake (doom) → Minor Tremors (harbinger)
(B): Winter Snowfall (harbinger) → River Overflow (doom)*
(E): Human Outbreak (doom) → Wildlife Infections (harbinger)
That is the structural difference distinguishing (B) from (E). Other theories attempting to separate the two aren’t it.
All three arguments exhibit the past vs. future flaw (discussed below), but both the stimulus and (E) also confuse necessity for sufficiency: in both, Premise 2 affirms Premise 1’s necessary condition. (B) doesn’t do that.
*If you’re wondering why the hell (B) translates this way instead of the other way around, you can find a walkthrough in (B)’s snippet.
A Realistic Approach
If you didn’t proactively identify this stimulus’ “past events don’t guarantee future outcomes” flaw, you should aspire to do so. It’s a common one, and it's enough to guide your shallow dip into the answer choices. Judging the answers through this lens narrows the field to (B) and (E). To distill the flaw, view the argument through the following lens:
In the past, earthquakes were preceded by tremors.
Just now, some tremors happened.
________
In the future, an earthquake is gonna happen.
This argument hinges on an analogy between past patterns and future events – an analogy that could be imperfect because, you know, the future could be different from the past.
Analysis by MichaelWright
25.
Which one of the following █████████ ████████ █ ███████ ██ ████████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
In the past, █ █████ █████████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ████████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ████████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███████
b
This river has ██████████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ █████████ █ ██████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ████████ █ ██████ ██████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███████
c
On planets other ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████ █████████ ████ █████ ███████ ███████████ █ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ████████████ █████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ █████ ███████████ █ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ███████████ ██ █████
d
The introduction of ██████████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ████████
e
So far, all █████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ █████ ██████ ████████ ████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ █████ █████ █████ █████████ ██ █████████ ████ █████████ ████ █████ █████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ █ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██████ ██ █████████