Need an example of this flaw - PT35.S1.Q17

Comments

• goingfor99th Free Trial Member

  January 2018 edited January 2018 3072 karma

  @"Kristen B" said:
  Hello All,

  So I was doing a hard LR question, PT35.S1.Q17, and I wanted to know if someone could help contextualize answer choice C with an example of something that exhibits this flaw? The flaw confuses the establishment that an event occurred with the establishment of the cause of that event.

  Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  Best wishes,
  Kristen

  We know that the sun "came up" yesterday, but do we know the reason why the sun came up yesterday?

  Establishment that an event occurred: "We all watched the sun crest the horizon yesterday morning, so we know that the sun 'came up.'"

  Establishment of the cause of that event: "The sun 'came up' because of the way the Earth spins on its axis." (You can probably see how this is a contentious claim.)

  In the stimulus, we're told that "the ice sheet must have temporarily melted," but the stimulus never asserts a definitive cause of the ice sheet's temporary melting, 'either severe climatic warming or volcanic activity in Antarctica's mountains COULD have melted the ice sheets,' so "C" can't be our flaw.

  "E" is the correct answer because it could be the case that those "fossils of a kind previously found only in ocean-floor sediments" could have found their way there without the ice sheet having temporarily melted when it's said to have.