PT1.S4.Q10 - The formation of hurricane that threaten the United States mainland

A Girl Knows Nothing

help

Can someone please help me see how C is correct.

My thought process was this:

P1: high atmospheric winds off the western coast of Africa -> formation of hurricanes threaten US mainland

P2: abundant rain falls in SS Africa -> hurricanes hit with particular frequency

Abundant rain -> promote the ability of the winds to form hurricanes

I did not really see the flaw, but I thought there was some kind of jump. So maybe a unstated assumption.

In another blog I read said it was a correlation/causation, but I do not see that.

JuandaSheep

Hi there,

Here's my summary of the stimulus:

Atmospheric winds in WA -> formation of hurricanes [causal relationship]
Abundant rainfalls in SSA ~ hurricanes hit US [correlation]

Therefore,
Abundant rainfalls in SSA -> atmospheric winds in WA -> formation of hurricanes [causal relationship]

*Note: The arrows represent causal relationships in this specific context instead of conditional relationships.

The second statement only says, "when A happens, B happens." We actually don't know if abundant rainfalls cause hurricanes hit the US mainland with particular frequency based on this information alone. That's confusing correlation with causation. C is the best match for this flaw.

Another flaw in the stimulus:

Even if we go as far as taking the second statement as a causal relationship, the conclusion still can't be drawn. You see, we now have two things that simultaneously cause hurricanes in the US: the winds and the rainfalls. It takes a bit of a leap to conclude that one of these possibly-independent causes of hurricanes causes the other. What if they are both signs of Thora, the goddess of hurricanes, who travels on her carriages across the Atlantic and brings destruction to the US?

If you go with this interpretation, it would be harder to slap a "correlation is not causation" label on it, which makes C less appealing.

Hope that helps!