#24 - Meteorologist: The number of tornadoes reported annual

[Beth Hayden]

Hi BMM,

It's not really a logical assumption, more of an inference. If there are large and medium sized tornados, there also have to be smaller ones. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to describe the smallest sized tornados as "medium," because medium means it's in the middle of a range of possible sizes. Small/Medium/Large are words of degree that only make sense in context with one another. Of course it's possible that there are more than three classifications, but if you are going to say "large," there has to be something smaller, and if you want to say "medium," there have to be sizes both bigger and smaller. So there could be any number of size classifications, but there at least has to be three.

Remember, this is a strengthen question, so we don't need an answer that proves the conclusion and rules out all possibilities! It seems like you might be approaching this more like an assumption question. We are just looking for an answer that, if true, could lend support to the conclusion. If L/M tornados are not being reported more often, it's entirely plausible that small tornados are making up the difference. And since we have now gotten better at finding tornados, it makes sense that the ones we are finding now that we didn't find in the 1950s are smaller and thus harder to see with the naked eye.

Sure, there might also be "extremely large" tornados, but why is that a problem? The stimulus doesn't say exactly how the technology works, just that we are now finding more tornados than we used to. That probably means we are finding small ones, but who knows, maybe these super-tornados are also hard to detect without technology because they are so big? But you don't have to worry about that, because you've already found a plausible explanation for why (C), if true, could strengthen the argument--and that's all you need.

Hope that's helpful!

[BMM2021]

Very helpful, thanks! Seeing the small/medium/large inference pop up more often in studying now too, of course.

Hi BMM,

It's not really a logical assumption, more of an inference. If there are large and medium sized tornados, there also have to be smaller ones. Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense to describe the smallest sized tornados as "medium," because medium means it's in the middle of a range of possible sizes. Small/Medium/Large are words of degree that only make sense in context with one another. Of course it's possible that there are more than three classifications, but if you are going to say "large," there has to be something smaller, and if you want to say "medium," there have to be sizes both bigger and smaller. So there could be any number of size classifications, but there at least has to be three.

Remember, this is a strengthen question, so we don't need an answer that proves the conclusion and rules out all possibilities! It seems like you might be approaching this more like an assumption question. We are just looking for an answer that, if true, could lend support to the conclusion. If L/M tornados are not being reported more often, it's entirely plausible that small tornados are making up the difference. And since we have now gotten better at finding tornados, it makes sense that the ones we are finding now that we didn't find in the 1950s are smaller and thus harder to see with the naked eye.

Sure, there might also be "extremely large" tornados, but why is that a problem? The stimulus doesn't say exactly how the technology works, just that we are now finding more tornados than we used to. That probably means we are finding small ones, but who knows, maybe these super-tornados are also hard to detect without technology because they are so big? But you don't have to worry about that, because you've already found a plausible explanation for why (C), if true, could strengthen the argument--and that's all you need.

Hope that's helpful!

[jdleggett]

So, this question requires two inferences:

1) Based on the answer choice (if true), the number of small tornadoes reported must have significantly increased.

2) Our improved ability to find tornados means finding small tornados we previously didn't report.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi jdleggett,

Just to be clear, the argument itself doesn't require the two inferences that you listed, but Answer C (if true) would suggest those two inferences and therefore strengthen the argument.

In other words, there wouldn't necessarily be any reason to pre-phrase an answer regarding the size of the tornadoes. There could be many ways to strengthen this argument.

However, given the information in Answer C that the large and medium sized tornadoes reported have remained the same, it is reasonable to infer that the number of small tornadoes being reported has significantly increased and that this increase is likely due to our improved ability to detect them (as smaller tornadoes would presumably be harder to detect with the naked eye.)

As mentioned in earlier posts, the answer doesn't have to 100% prove the conclusion, just add more information that makes it more likely to be the case.

[cd1010]

Hello -- Can you clarify how to be able to spot implicit causal statements? I see it now that I'm re-reading the stimulus, but this was not immediately where my mind went to. I was thinking that the conclusion was: # of tornadoes has probably not increased. This seems to me to be what the stimulus was trying to convince me of.

I picked B because I thought this supported the idea that we're finding a higher percentage of them than we used to. In some ways, I interpreted B the way that I processed some "new info"-type answer choices in supporting questions. If more tornadoes are hitting major population centers, then that increases the chance of finding them.

The official explanation uses the language of "technology", but I tried to keep as close to the language of the stimulus as possible, so in my mind, the stimulus was open about "finding tornadoes". So I thought, sure, if it's hitting larger cities, then people are finding them more. But, I realize that this is not exactly the same as ability to find them.

Basically, I didn't process this stimulus' reasoning as a causal explanation for a paradox, so I think my mind was focused on something else. And I'm not sure how to not make this error in the future?

Thanks!

[Chandler H]

Hello -- Can you clarify how to be able to spot implicit causal statements? I see it now that I'm re-reading the stimulus, but this was not immediately where my mind went to. I was thinking that the conclusion was: # of tornadoes has probably not increased. This seems to me to be what the stimulus was trying to convince me of.

I picked B because I thought this supported the idea that we're finding a higher percentage of them than we used to. In some ways, I interpreted B the way that I processed some "new info"-type answer choices in supporting questions. If more tornadoes are hitting major population centers, then that increases the chance of finding them.

The official explanation uses the language of "technology", but I tried to keep as close to the language of the stimulus as possible, so in my mind, the stimulus was open about "finding tornadoes". So I thought, sure, if it's hitting larger cities, then people are finding them more. But, I realize that this is not exactly the same as ability to find them.

Basically, I didn't process this stimulus' reasoning as a causal explanation for a paradox, so I think my mind was focused on something else. And I'm not sure how to not make this error in the future?

Thanks!

Hi cd1010,

As others have said in this thread, it's more useful to think of this stimulus as a resolve the paradox question, in which the meteorologist actually DOES resolve the paradox. How do we identify that when we read the stimulus? A good indicator of a paradox is the presentation of two facts which seem to contradict each other—like they can't both be true at the same time. This is where we intervene to look for the cause.

In the first two sentences, we learn a fact (# of reported tornadoes has more than doubled since 1950s), and then we hear an assertion that seems to contradict that fact (BUT, the actual # of tornadoes has probably not increased). This is our paradox. Then, the meteorologist provides a cause that resolves that paradox—i.e., we have an easier time finding tornadoes now than we did then.

Ideally, the correct answer choice will show that we may have found more tornadoes, but ALSO that there are not simply more tornadoes. That's the issue with answer choice (B)—there's not really a good explanation for 2x as many tornadoes hitting major population centers, EXCEPT that the number of tornadoes overall has increased. Which is the opposite of what we're trying to prove!

On the other hand, answer choice (C) tells us that we've reported about as many large and medium sized tornadoes every year since the '50s. That means the increased # of tornadoes we report are mostly small tornadoes, which are the ones we'd need help finding, right? Therefore, it fulfills that "finding tornadoes" part of the stimulus that you mentioned.

Does this clarify things?