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.
25.
Which one of the following █████████ ████████ █ ███████ ██ ████████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
In the past, █ █████ █████████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ████████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ███████ █████ ██ ████████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ███████
(A) features a causal premise (“resulted”), which significantly undercuts the stimulus’ past vs. future flaw. The past vs. future element is still there (“in the past;” “in the near future”), it’s just a lot less devastating: if tropical storms cause hurricanes, it becomes much more reasonable to think a hurricane will happen after a tropical storm happens.
But oh yeah, that’s the other structural mismatch: (A) says a tropical storm isn’t happening, so a hurricane won’t happen.
b
This river has ██████████ ██ █████ ██████ ████ █████████ █ ██████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ████ ████████ █ ██████ ██████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ███████
For (B)’s explanation, see the “Here’s What You Probably Need” section of the analysis, underneath the stimulus.
Another angle from which to see why (B) doesn't match is that the argument here is quite reasonable (whereas the argument in the stimulus is not). In the past, every high winter snowfall followed by a spring thaw was followed by an overflow. This winter there's been a ton of snow. So we can expect an overflow. This is reasonable because every high winter snowfall was followed by an overflow.
In order for (B) to match the stimulus, we have to flip around the first premise. It would have to say: In the past, every overflow was preceded by high winter snowfall plus a spring thaw. This winter there's been a ton of snow. So we can reasonably expect an overflow. This is not reasonable because we don't know how many high snowfall winters were not followed by overflows.
c
On planets other ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ████████ █████████ ████ █████ ███████ ███████████ █ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ████████████ █████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ █████ ███████████ █ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ███████████ ██ █████
(C) also features an argument by analogy, but instead of assuming past circumstances are analogous to future circumstances, (C) assumes other planets are analogous to our planet.
Closely related argument forms; nevertheless distinct.
d
The introduction of ██████████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ █████ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ █████ ████ ██ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ████████
(D) features a super strong, simple present tense* causal premise (“always results”), which allows it to dodge the stimulus’ past vs. future flaw entirely. In fact, it’s a valid argument.
*Simple present tense just means the claim applies across past, present, and future. The sentence “the sun rises in the east” is written in the simple present tense.
e
So far, all █████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ █████ ██████ ████████ ████ █████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ █████████ █████ █████ █████ █████████ ██ █████████ ████ █████████ ████ █████ █████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██ █ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██████ ██ █████████
For (E)’s explanation, see the “Here’s What You Probably Need” section of the analysis, underneath the stimulus.