Bunuel
The average size of marine life that washes up on the shore of the Japanese island Ryukyu is smaller than the average size that washes up on the Western coast of Australia. Giant squid have recently been found washed up on the shores of Ryukyu as well as the Western coast of Australia. It can be concluded that the average size of the giant squids on the shore Ryukyu must be less than that of giant squids washed up on the shores of Western Australia.
The argument above can be attacked on the grounds that it does which of the following?
A. It fails to distinguish between giant squids and more diminutive variants.
B. It assumes that a general pattern is likely to hold true in a specific case.
C. It discounts the possibility that the largest giant squid was found on the shores of Ryukyu.
D. It mistakenly asserts that one instance holds true for all cases.
E. It does not discuss the size of the giant squid compared to other squids
Official Explanation
Answer: (B)
The argument assumes that what holds true for marine animals in general holds true for giant squids. In other words, it takes a general rule and applies it to a specific case. Just because larger sea creatures in general tend to wash ashore in Australia than in Japan does not mean that the giant squids washed ashore in Australia are larger, on average, than those washed ashore in Japan. This points best to (B).
(A) is wrong because even if the argument had focused on the different sizes of squid (diminutive variants = small squids), it still makes the mistaken assumption that what holds true in general holds true in the case of the giant squid.
(C) is tempting. The argument, however, focuses on the average size of life washed ashore in Japan vs. Australia. Even if the largest giant squid ever seen was found off the shores of Japan, the average size of squids in Japan could still be smaller than that found in Australia. Think of it this way: the average size of squid could be 32 ft long in Japan and 34 ft long in Australia. It doesn't matter that a 44-foot squid--the longest ever--was found in Japan. The problem with the argument is that nothing definitive can be said about the average size of squid in Australia and Japan based on the general observation that aquatic life washed ashore tends to be larger in Australia.
(D), while tempting, reverses the order of things. The paragraph itself takes a general case (sea life in Japan vs. sea life in Australia) and applies it to a specific case (giant squids in Japan vs. those in Australia). The paragraph does not take a specific case and generalize from that case - this is what (D) implies.
(E) is similar to (A) in that it focuses on the difference in size of squids, a fact that doesn't affect the argument. The argument is only focused on giant squids and what you can say about their size based on a general observation on aquatic life washed ashore in either Japan or Australia.