#10 - Historian: In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries

[Adam Tyson]

That sounds to me a lot like a Whole-to-Part flaw, goingslow. Something like concluding that because a particular type of tomb must have been extremely common in this culture, therefore one particular tomb must have been built that way. Perhaps in this case we could have concluded that the Swahili and Oromo people may have had some influence on each other - a broad conclusion - but instead the author came to the very restricted (narrow and specific) conclusion that the Swahili made their tombs this way because they had been conquered by the Oromo and forced to do things their way. Then answer C would be a lot better looking (although E would still be a solid answer.)

One reason C isn't a great answer is that the conclusion in the stimulus is not very restricted. It's soft, saying that the Swahili were influenced "to some extent" by the Oromo. That's still pretty broad.

[fortunateking]

Dear PS people,
When I did this problem, I chose (C) because I think the stimulus supports that Swahili and Oromo may have had some interactions, maybe S influenced O, or O influenced S, just some communications going on at that time, which made their architecture similar, and this is a rather broad conclusion. However, the author concludes that it's O influenced S, not the other way round, which is unwarrantedly restricted.
Why am I wrong?

[Hanin Abu Amara]

Answer choice C is wrong because the issue with the stimulus is that the premises aren't connected to the conclusions at all. The flaw with the stimulus is that the premises don't support the conclusions. Just because they had similar pillars doesn't mean one influenced the other.

C is talking about drawing a bigger conclusion, the problem is that we can't draw a conclusion at all.