hannahkagalwala
In the last question, I'm unable to understand why C is correct and A is wrong.
First of all, this is an inference question, right? Because
OG has put it under the 'supporting idea' category and the explanation also reads "The question asks for information explicitly stated..."
Quote:
Also, if someone can explain the answer choices A & C as provided by the
OG. Thanks!
Hey hannahkagalwala,
It is indeed an inference question, albeit detail oriented, since the question stem clearly asks us to look for an
implication of the information given in a
particular section of the passage.
Now let's look at choice A:
A. They (1)
can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur but (2)
not how large it will be.
So, choice A talks about the two things:
1.
can identify when an earthquake is likely to occur : Passage states, and I quote, " are indistinguishable from other
minor tremors that occur
without large earthquakes. Basically, this information tells us that yes tremors do happen but the kind of tremors that are followed by earthquakes are not different from the kind of tremors that are NOT followed by earthquakes. Accordingly, if such tremors happen without a resulting earthquake, then the researchers cannot really tell us whether an earthquake is due.
2.
not how large it will be. This can be directly understood from this section of the passage "
nothing[/b] about the
magnitude of an impending quake.
Therefore, since one part can be inferred and one cannot be, this choice is incorrect.
Now, let's take a look at Choice C.
C. They are
unable to determine either the time or the
place that earthquakes are likely to occur.
When I read this choice initially, the "place" aspect did throw me off a little-bit, but after reading the information one more time and looking at the other answer choices, I went along with Choice C. So, here are my cents on it:
Quote:
Secondly, the passage states the foreshocks are indistinguishable from other minor tremors that occur without large earthquakes. At a stretch, it could mean that they are unsure of the time.
1.
unable to determine either the time - This portion, as you agree to an extent, is correct for the reasons explained above (refer to point no. 1 under the explanation for choice A for more detail).
Quote:
But how can they be unsure of the place? The tremors are 'nearby' as stated in the passage.
2.
place that earthquakes are likely to occur - Alright, so let's look at how the whole information about tremors observed "nearby" places is given to us. We are basically told that after stress increases beyond a particular point in the rocks, something happens, leading to tremors and other things in the
areas nearby to these rocks. Right? But then we are also told that just because these tremors occur, we cannot predict that an earthquake will follow. So, when you combine these two pieces of information, it means that say at place xyz, the researchers observe tremors, but they can't really say that at this place, there will be an earthquake. This is why the whole "place" angle makes sense - even though one is not very comfortable with it in the beginning.
Hope the above explanation helps.
Cheers!