Summarize Argument
The meteorologist concludes that his station’s weather predictions are better than its competitors. This is because the majority of times they predicted rain, it rained. The station’s competitors have not been accurate most of the time.
Notable Assumptions
The meteorologist assumes that prediction accuracy is an effective indicator of usefulness and reliability. For example, it could be that the meteorologist's station has only predicted it would rain three times in a given year and it rained two out of those three times, while the competitors predicted it would rain 100 times and it rained 49 out of those 100 times. While the meteorologist’s station may be more accurate, it is not more useful or reliable. The author also assumes a conclusion about weather forecasts broadly using facts about rain—maybe people also care about whether it will snow.
A
The meteorologist’s station forecast rain more often than did the most popular news station in the area.
This strengthens the argument by addressing a potential weakness. It provides additional information that reinforces the meteorologist's assumption that the proportions he compares are comparable, as his station is more accurate even with a larger number of predictions.
B
The less popular of the competing stations does not employ any full-time meteorologists.
This does not affect the argument. How many meteorologists a station employs and their status of employment (i.e., whether they’re full-time, part-time, etc.) does not provide us with information about how reliable or useful their station is in predicting the weather.
C
The most popular news station in the area is popular because of its investigative news reports.
This does not affect the argument. A station being able to put on a good investigative news report doesn’t tell us anything about its weather prediction abilities.
D
The meteorologist’s station has a policy of not making weather forecasts more than three days in advance.
This does not affect the argument. We don’t know if this policy affects the station’s accuracy, and we have no reason to believe that all its competitors don’t share this policy.
E
On most of the occasions when the meteorologist’s station forecast that it would not rain, at least one of its competitors also forecast that it would not rain.
This does not affect the argument. It could be that on all the days the station predicted it would not rain its competitors predicted the same—but still, the station has a higher accuracy of predicting rain on the days it rained. This doesn’t change anything for the argument.
"Surprising" Phenomenon
Why did the witnesses who gave less inaccurate details than usual at first end up giving more inaccurate details than usual later?
Objective
The correct answer will be a hypothesis that explains why witnesses who gave relatively accurate accounts when prompted to give inaccuracies ended up giving relatively inaccurate accounts when prompted to answer accurately. We don’t know whether these witnesses changed their testimonies at all the second time around, or if the rest of the group simply started amending their erroneous details. But a hypothesis that points to either of these explanations would help explain the situation.
A
These witnesses were more observant about details than were most of the other witnesses.
This would explain why the first group gave more accurate testimonies the first time around. But why would that change when they gave their testimonies a second time? We need something to reconcile that discrepancy.
B
These witnesses had better memories than did most of the other witnesses.
Like (A), this answer choice explains why the first group gave more accurate testimonies the first time around. We need to know why their testimonies were relatively inaccurate the second time.
C
These witnesses were less inclined than most of the other witnesses to be influenced in their testimony by the nature of the questioning.
These witnesses didn’t change much about their testimonies the second time around. So, while they weren’t led towards inaccuracies on the first go as the other witnesses were, they also weren’t led towards accurate details the second time.
D
These witnesses were unclear about the details at first but then began to remember more accurately as they answered questions.
This could be true, but it doesn’t reconcile the fact these witnesses were more accurate than others the first time around and less accurate the second. We need something comparative between the two groups.
E
These witnesses tended to give testimony containing more details than most of the other witnesses.
It doesn’t matter how detailed their testimonies were. We need to know why those details were relatively accurate on first examination and relatively inaccurate on second examination.