In 1971 researchers hoping to predict earthquakes in the short term by

Hi stonecold, good question!



Imagine that the researchers recorded 100 large earthquakes of various magnitudes during their study and that nearly all of those large earthquakes were preceded by minor tremors. This might lead us to expect any minor tremor to be followed by a large earthquake, even though we might not know exactly how large that "large" earthquake will be. Thus, choice A is tempting.

Now consider the final fact given in line 23: "these foreshocks... are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes." If instead the passage stated, "these foreshocks are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur before small earthquakes", THEN choice A would be defensible... this would imply that after a minor tremor we can expect an earthquake, though we have no idea how small or large it will be. But the passage states that the tremors are "indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes." Therefore, the passage implies that a minor tremor could be followed by a large earthquake, a small earthquake, or no earthquake at all; for example, the researchers may have recorded HUNDREDS of minor tremors that were NOT followed by an earthquake.

This explanation is supported by the first sentence starting in line 17: "Researchers initially reported success in identifying these possible precursors, but subsequent analyses of their data proved disheartening." In other words, the researchers were initially successful in identifying earthquake precursors; subsequent analyses proved disheartening, implying that the researchers were not successful in identifying precursors that would predict earthquakes.

I hope that helps!