#1 - In the previous two years, significantly more rain has fallen in Browning

[Hanin Abu Amara]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B).

The author is using a statistic from two years previous that there was more rain in September than in July to conclude that this year there will be more rain in September than in July. The author is basing his conclusion on one statistic from one year that occurred two years prior. This is not enough evidence to conclude that in the future the same thing will occur.

There is the possibility that the rain two years previous was unusual and as such no reason to think that it would happen again.

This is a flaw question which means our job is to find what is wrong with the argument. Our prephrase is that the author is using one instance in the past to make a conclusion about the future.

Answer choice (A): The author uses a premise in past tense and concludes about the future and as such this isn't a circular flaw.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. because the inference the author draws is that this year it will rain more in September than in July using the one instance two years previous. It is flawed because this is not sufficient evidence to conclude that it will continue occurring.

Answer choice (C): Flaw questions do not allow us to introduce new information in the answer choices. Since the stimulus does not discuss average rainfall statistics, AC C introduces new information and as such is wrong.

Answer choice (D): There aren't two phenomena in the stimulus. We also lack "many instances" as we're discussing only one instance. D fails as it is describing things that the author didn't do.

Answer choice (E): There was no source cited in the stimulus and as such nothing to asses the reliability of.

[mkarimi73]

Could I have an explanation as to why (C) and (D) are incorrect? (I know why they are wrong, but I want to hear from the experts to confirm if my Process of Elimination was correct.) Thanks.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi mkarimi73,

For answer choice (C), we don't know anything about the average rainfall. The stimulus talks about the rainfall in the past two years, but that is very different from the average rainfall in a city. In answer choice (D), I'm not sure what two phenomena you are seeing. We have the rainfall. But we don't have another event/occurrence/phenomenon associated with that rainfall. We just have rainfall in different years. So both answer choices (C) and (D) were describing things that were not in the stimulus.

Hope that helps!

[Bmas123]

Hi! I was between B and C and went with C instead, just more as a guess between the two. Is one of the reasons C is wrong because it says "overemphasizing" when really the argument overlooked the fact that data wasnt skewed with unusual rainfall? Thanks

[Robert Carroll]

Bmas123,

This is simply an inference about a general pattern from a very small sample. Therefore, answer choice (B) is correct.

I don't think there is any information in the stimulus about average rainfall, so the author is not exaggerating average rainfall statistics - they aren't given.

Robert Carroll

[pineapplelover18]

for this question, why cant the timeframe (july - sept) and rainfall be considered the 2 phenomena?

[Adam Tyson]

I see a lot of students get confused by the word "phenomenon," pineapplelover18. It sounds so technical and fancy, and it's not a word we use in ordinary conversation all that often. What I like to tell people is that "phenomenon" just means "a thing that happens."

Looked at that way, the timeframe isn't a phenomenon, because the timeframe isn't a thing that happens. Time passing - that's a phenomenon. Rain falling - that's also a phenomenon. But "July to September" isn't a thing that happens. It's just a period of time in which things happen. You wouldn't say "well, rain happened, and July through September also happened at the same time, so they must be associated."

Another problem with answer D is that there aren't "many instances" in this argument. There's just two. That's why answer B is much better than D - it correctly characterizes the evidence as being about a limited number of instances, rather than many such instances.