vjsharma25 wrote:
According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a
meteorite large enough to cause an ice age on an
average of once every 100 million years. The last such
incident occurred nearly 100 million years ago, so we
can expect that Earth will be struck by such a meteorite
in the near future. This clearly warrants funding to
determine whether there is a means to protect our
planet from such meteorite strikes.
The reasoning in the argument is most subject to
criticism on the grounds that the argument
(A) makes a bold prescription on the basis of
evidence that establishes only a high
probability for a disastrous event
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that the
probability of a chance event’s occurring is not
affected by whether the event has occurred during
a period in which it would be expected to occur
(C) moves from evidence about the average
frequency of an event to a specific prediction
about when the next such event will occur
(D) fails to specify the likelihood that, if such a
meteorite should strike Earth, the meteorite
would indeed cause an ice age
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that
some feasible means can be found to deter
large meteorite strikes
Found this solution, I hope this will help us for better understanding..
According to some astronomers, Earth is struck by a
meteorite large enough to cause an ice age on an
average of once every 100 million years. The last such
incident occurred nearly 100 million years ago:
Conclusion: so we can expect that Earth will be struck by such a meteorite
in the near future. This clearly warrants funding to
determine whether there is a means to protect our
planet from such meteorite strikes.
Let's combine "So and Clearly.": Then some astronomers concludes that Earth will definately be struck by such a meteorite large enough to cause an ice age. Yet their conclusion is based on only average freuency of strikes without enough and specific evidence or data to prove it.
Analogy here: "Tom drinks a bottle of beer average of once a year. he drank one bottle of beer last year, so he will drink it in the future, which clearly warrants a strategy to determine whether there is a means to prevent him from drinking it."
Can you predict, based on average frequency of his dringking, that he will definately drink it in near future? Not really! Waht if he stops drinking it for some reasons!
(A) makes a bold prescription on the basis of
evidence that establishes only a high
probability for a disastrous event:
=in fact this describes the argument but not indicates falws.
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that the
probability of a chance event’s occurring is not
affected by whether the event has occurred during
a period in which it would be expected to occur
=180 degree to the argument.
(C) moves from evidence about the average
frequency of an event to a specific prediction
about when the next such event will occur
=Here the flaw goes.
(D) fails to specify the likelihood that, if such a
meteorite should strike Earth, the meteorite
would indeed cause an ice age
=stimulus says "large enough to cause"
(E) presumes, without providing justification, that
some feasible means can be found to deter
large meteorite strikes:
=Not warranted but opens possibility of determinig it.