#17 - On the basis of the available evidence, Antarctica has

[cboles]

When I read answer choice E I eliminated it because of the word "resolution." I read it as the solving of the problem aka the ice melting has more than one way of resolving itself, which I thought had nothing to do with the conclusion. How am I misinterpreting this?

I chose B because I read it as saying that either severe climatic warming was what caused the ice to melt OR the volcanic activity caused the ice to melt but it didn't address the fact that both could have occurred (answer choice B).

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi cboles,

By "resolution" they mean "explanation" - the two are synonymous. Resolving an inconsistency is the same as explaining a puzzling phenomenon There is no cognizable difference between these expressions.

Thanks,

[ksandberg]

Hello,

Although I read the discussion, I am still confused as to why C is incorrect. This answer says that the author establishes that a certain event occurred (3 million year old fossils were found in Antarctica’s ice sheet) and confuses this with having established the cause of that event (ice must have melted 3 million years ago to allow the fossils into the sheet). In the explanation on this page it says that no "event" occurred and therefore C is incorrect, but I think an event did occur as the discovery of the fossils is an event. I took C to say, just because 3 million year old fossils were found in the ice sheet does not conclusively signify the melting of the ice sheet. Why is this incorrect?

Thank you for your time.

[Francis O'Rourke]

There are two possible interpretations for what answer choice (C) is referring to as "a certain event."

If the "event" is referring to the discovery or placement of fossils under the ice sheet, the speaker does not explain or seek to explain what caused the fossils to be found. Ice sheets melting would not cause the discovery.

If the "event" is referring to ice sheets melting, the speaker only gives us possible explanations. She does not attempt to give a definitive explanation.

[cindyhylee87]

Hi PS,

I felt (E) was correct but I ended up not choosing it because it says "as though one resolution is possible." When I looked at the stimulus, it actually proposed two solutions : either severe climate or volcanic activity. Am I taking the wording choice too literal?

Thanks,
Cindy

[Adam Tyson]

I like to analyze these answers by treating them sort of like a checklist, Cindy, and match up the elements of the answer to the elements of the conclusion. Here's how I worked through it:

"An inconsistency" - what inconsistency? A 3-million year old fossil in a place that it shouldn't be, if the general theory is correct.

"has more than one possible resolution" - that means there could be multiple ways to explain how that fossil got where it is.

"is treated as though only one resolution is possible" - what is that one resolution? The ice sheet temporarily melted. It's not about HOW it melted (volcanic activity or climate warning - two causes) but THAT it melted. Maybe there is another explanation besides melting? Like, maybe the general belief is just wrong, and the ice cap is far younger than we thought?

Play that matching game with abstract answers to Flaw questions and Method of Reasoning questions, and see if it makes them easier to select or eliminate. Good luck!

[Chantal]

Hello! I see why (E) is correct, but I'm still having trouble ruling out (C) as an answer.

My understanding is that the certain event the author established to have occurred is the ocean sediment being found in Antarctica. The author then claimed that the ice sheets MUST have melted at some point (establishing the cause of the event). I thought that the author established the cause of the event based on the occurrence of the event? As in, BECAUSE we found ocean sediment in Antartica, the ice sheets MUST have melted.

I hope this made sense. Thank you!

[Bob O'Halloran]

Hi Chantal,
Thank you for your question.
The wording of the stimulus is a bit confusing, but what was found was a fossil that had previously only been found in ocean sediment. The author doesn't discuss what caused the fossil to be found, but rather tries to explain how it got there. In doing so, the author commits a flaw by assuming that there is just one possible way for this to happen.
I hope this helps.
Bob

[Gorrochategui]

I was stuck between C and E and ended up choosing C "establishing that a certain event has occurred is confused with having established the cause of the event." I thought that "the 3 million year old fossils of a kind only found in the ocean floor were found under the ice sheet covering antartica" - was the certain even that occurred as mentioned in answer choice C and it was concluded that the Cause MUST have been that the ice sheet melted...

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Gorrochategui,

You're right that the finding of the 3 million year old fossils could be the "certain event" that occurred. But if that's the "certain event" that answer choice C refers to, the problem is that the stimulus never identifies its cause. What caused the finding of those fossils, when they were "recently" uncovered? I don't know. An expedition? A scientific research mission? Something else? That's not what the stimulus is focused on. Rather, the stimulus tries to explain how the things that became fossils were there in Antarctica 3 million years ago (because there was melting). But that's a different "event" (things that became fossils were present in Antarctica) than the one the stimulus says "occurred" (recently they were found). So answer choice C just doesn't match the argumentation in the stimulus.

Focus on the disconnect between the premises, which are about the possibility of melting 3 million years ago (through a possible volcano or climate warming), and the conclusion, which is certain that melting allowed the fossil things to be in Antarctica 3 million years ago. That conclusion is too strong, because other things (other than just melting) could've happened that allowed those fossil things to be in Antarctica at that time. Answer choice E speaks to that shift from possibility ("more than one possible resolution") to certainty ("treated as though only one resolution is possible").