What implications (consequences) that "The Earth's geologically stable regions have been studied more intensively by geologists than have its less stable regions." for the argument? We don't know. So the answer choice E must be eliminated because it calls for speculations, among other things.
The answer choice D, "Actual meteorite impacts have been scattered fairly evenly over the Earth's surface in the course of Earth's geological history," states what the author must have assumed, which is inferable from the argument ("this relatively greater abundance of securely identified craters in geologically stable regions must be explained by the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.")
Another look at the argument from the POV of a test taker is that this is a sufficient assumption question, so our task is to help the argument, so if D is not true, then the conclusion makes no sense.
Moreover, D addresses the possible objection to the argument, which we should see while reading the argument. The author states it "must be explained by..." but stop; what if something else can explain this fact.
Comments
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q12-impact-craters-caused-by-meteorites-t4209.html
What implications (consequences) that "The Earth's geologically stable regions have been studied more intensively by geologists than have its less stable regions." for the argument? We don't know. So the answer choice E must be eliminated because it calls for speculations, among other things.
The answer choice D, "Actual meteorite impacts have been scattered fairly evenly over the Earth's surface in the course of Earth's geological history," states what the author must have assumed, which is inferable from the argument ("this relatively greater abundance of securely identified craters in geologically stable regions must be explained by the lower rates of destructive geophysical processes in those regions.")
Another look at the argument from the POV of a test taker is that this is a sufficient assumption question, so our task is to help the argument, so if D is not true, then the conclusion makes no sense.
Moreover, D addresses the possible objection to the argument, which we should see while reading the argument. The author states it "must be explained by..." but stop; what if something else can explain this fact.