PrepTest 91+, Section 2, Question 1
In the previous two years, significantly more rain has fallen in Browning in September than in July. Therefore, this year in Browning more rain will probably fall in September than in July.
In the previous two years, significantly more rain has fallen in Browning in September than in July. Therefore, this year in Browning more rain will probably fall in September than in July.
In the previous two years, significantly more rain has fallen in Browning in September than in July. Therefore, this year in Browning more rain will probably fall in September than in July.
In the previous two years, significantly more rain has fallen in Browning in September than in July. Therefore, this year in Browning more rain will probably fall in September than in July.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument
contains a premise that presupposes the truth of the conclusion
draws an inference about a future event on the basis of a very limited number of instances of related past events
overemphasizes the possibility that average rainfall statistics could be skewed by large rainfall in one year
concludes that two phenomena are associated merely from the claim that there are many instances in which both phenomena are present
uses evidence drawn from a source whose reliability cannot readily be verified
Explanations
This argument concludes that we will probably see more rainfall this September than we do this July simply because that was the case the previous two years. Not necessarily.
What if those two data points are the only anomalies across 100 years of rain data where July's rainfall absolutely dwarfs September's? Totally plausible.
In other words, we can't conclude it's going to rain more this September than this June simply because that's what's happened the past two years.
This is a flaw question, which means the correct answer will be (1) something the argument did, and (2), the thing it did incorrectly.
I'm predicting something like, "predicts a future event based on an inadequate number of occurrences of the same event."
Let's see.
No chance. This is circular reasoning. This would sound like, "It's going to rain more this September than this July because it rains more this September than this July."
Perfect. This is what the argument did wrong. It takes too few instances of an event and then concludes that event's going to occur. This is the answer.
Nope. Ask yourself, "Did the argument do this?" Not really. If anything, the overemphasizes the likelihood of an event based on rainfall statistics from two years, not one.
No, this is a version of confusing correlation with causation. Our author doesn't conclude that greater rainfall in September compared to July is caused by that same trend occurring the previous two years. They're simply predicting that it will occur again because that's been the trend.
Nah, our author doesn't appeal to any authority. This would look like asking a botanist about the likelihood of weather patterns as opposed to a climatologist or meteorologist. Easy to spot when it happens, and certainly not our answer.
0 Comments