#22 - There is a widespread belief that people can predict

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Evaluate the Argument. The correct answer choice is (E)

Here the author presents the interesting issue of whether or not dogs can predict earthquakes. While some say that they can, others assert mere coincidence. The correct answer choice will elicit information providing some insight into the explanation of this reported strange behavior in dogs.

Only correct answer choice (E) presents an inquiry which would be valuable in determining how credible these claims are.

The Variance Test: If the referenced “strange behavior” can include any type of strange behavior, then this would lend some credibility to the assertion that the behavior is coincidental. If, on the other hand, the strange behavior is very specific to impending earthquakes, then it becomes more likely that the dogs really do have such senses.

[voodoochild]

In this problem, the skeptics' conclusion is that "this" belief is based on selective coincidence. However, a premise about "dog" is used to support that stand. To me, one of the gaps is that the skeptics is assuming a connection between "dog's behavior" and "animal behavior"

Wouldn't D) be relevant because if we assume that dog's behavior is correlated but, say, squirrel's behavior is not. Wouldn't it undermine the connection between "dog" and "animal behavior" in the conclusion?

Please help me.


Thanks
Voodoo Child

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Voodoo,

No. A dog is an animal, and the skeptics are simply citing dogs as an example of how this widespread belief could be wrong. They aren't bound by some law to have to address every type of animal; they are allowed to limit their argument, especially in a case where the observation could apply to other animals (including squirrels, cows, what have you). That said, is the skeptics counter airtight? No, definitely not, because there could be other animals out there who do display predictive behaviors.

However, (D) is about the level of "pronouncement" of the behavior in dogs and other animals, and that's not what the skeptics argument is really about. That's why (D) is wrong. (E) addresses the issue that you mention, which is whether the behavior is correlated to the event.

Thanks!

[yrivers]

Thank you for the explanations above. They were helpful!

Can you clarify why C is incorrect? C states, "Are there animals about whose behavior people know too little to be able to distinguish unusual from everyday behavior?" I chose this thinking that if there are animals whose behaviors humans cannot differentiate between unusual and everyday behavior, it'd defeat the purpose of predicting earthquakes through animal behavior. If we can't differentiate between normal and unusual behavior, how can we even begin to predict earthquakes?

[Charlie Melman]

Hi Y,

Answer choice (C) is wrong because we're only concerned here with animals whose behaviors humans can distinguish from everyday behavior. The stimulus casts doubt on the idea that people make too much of unusual animal behavior. If there are animals whose behavior we can't even distinguish as abnormal, then there's no way people could be making too much of their abnormal behavior. Do you see why (C) doesn't allow us to know anything more about the argument?

[andriana.caban]

Hey!

Can someone simplify the wording of answer choice (E)? I'm not quite understanding what it's saying and its relation to the stimulus despite the above explanations.

Also, for evaluate questions, we're looking for an answer choice that has the biggest impact on the argument. With this understand, how does (E) have the biggest impact?

Thanks!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Andriana,

What answer choice E is getting at is whether the odd/strange behavior animals exhibit before an earthquake is different in kind from their other odd/strange behavior.

A couple illustrating examples:

1. My dog never stands on his hind legs and yelps at me nervously. I've never seen him do this. If he did it (for the only time he'd ever done it) right before an earthquake, that would stand out to me and make me think his behavior could be him sensing the impending earthquake. Such behavior would be "specific to impending earthquakes," meaning it never happens in any other circumstance.

2. My dog runs around at night sometimes to burn off steam, which is different than how he usually behaves (usually he just sleeps on the couch). But he engages in this "odd" behavior at a number of different times that don't include before earthquakes. Since this behavior occurs in a number of cases, it would count as "any kind of unusual behavior" (not specific to an earthquake).

What answer choice E is getting at is whether the "odd" behavior people notice before earthquakes is of the second type above (in which case it wouldn't be very strongly predictive of earthquakes, and the skeptics' position would be more likely to be correct) or of the first type above (in which case it very well could be strongly predictive of earthquakes, and the skeptics' position would be less likely to be correct). This means the answer to the question posed by answer choice E has the strongest impact on the argument (because either way we answer the question, the skeptics' position is affected, whether negatively or positively).

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[Kaluza- Klein theory]

Good Evening Powerscore,

When first approaching this question I had a pre-phase in my head of what I was looking for which was to prove whether these dogs could in fact predict impending earthquakes or was the behavior a glitch in their usual behavior. Immediately i eliminated A, B,C. I was left with D, E. I must admit i was hesitant with D as it made some valid points but picked E. The question i wanted to ask is looking at D if it was possible I could more detailed explanation of why it is the wrong answer. As luckily i made an accurate pre-phase but it truly was a battle between D and E.

Regards,
Kaluza - Klein Theory

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Kaluza-Klein Theory!

Try out the Variance Test for answer choice (D). Answer the question posed in the answer choice with the two polar opposite answers. If it will help you evaluate the argument, then one of the answers will strengthen the argument and the other answer will weaken it.

(D) Are the sorts of behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes as pronounced in dogs as they are in other animals?

Polar opposite answers:
1) Yes, the sorts of behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes are as pronounced in dogs as they are in other animals.
2) No, the sorts of behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes are not as pronounced in dogs as they are in other animals.

Does answering "yes" help or hurt the argument? Does answering "no" help or hurt the argument? In both cases, the answer to this question has no effect on the argument. The argument is not about dogs vs. other animals nor is it about how pronounced this behavior is. The argument isn't even about dogs specifically--dogs are just an example to illustrate the skeptics' broader viewpoint that a belief that earthquakes can be predicted from unusual animal behavior is based on selective coincidence. Knowing the answer to the question posed in (D) tells us nothing about whether animal behavior can predict earthquakes or whether it is selective coincidence. Thus, (D) is unhelpful in evaluating this argument.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey