There is a widespread belief that people can predict impending earthqu

Can someone explain in detail why the answer is E), not D)? Thanks!

There is a widespread belief that people can predict impending earthquakes from unusual animal behavior. Skeptics claim that this belief is based on selective coincidence: people whose dogs behaved oddly just before an earthquake will be especially likely to remember that fact. At any given time, the skeptics say, some of the world’s dogs will be behaving oddly.

Clarification of which one of the following issues would be most important to an evaluation of the skeptics’ position?

(A) Which is larger, the number of skeptics or the
number of people who believe that animal
behavior can foreshadow earthquakes?
(B) Are there means other than the observation of
animal behavior that non-scientists can use to
predict earthquakes?
(C) Are there animals about whose behavior people know too little to be able to distinguish
unusual from everyday behavior?
(D) Are the sorts of behavior supposedly
predictive of earthquakes as pronounced in
dogs as they are in other animals?
(E) Is the animal behavior supposedly predictive
of earthquakes specific to impending earthquakes or can it be any kind of unusual
behavior?

Skeptics position is that 'At any given time ,some of the world’s dogs will be behaving oddly and their behaviour is coincidental. '
We need to evaluate this position.

How can we weaken this position. If we can prove that the behaviour is not coincidental.
What if the animals behaved differently prior to an earthquake compared to when they normally behave oddly.
If yes then the conclusion is weakened. If no conclusion is falsified. This is stated in E.

As to D, even if they are as pronounced as in other animals how does this affect the skeptics conclusion. It doesn't.
This choice doesn't address the skeptics conclusion.Hence Wrong IMO.

hope Its clear.

Pre-thinking helped me here. In evaluate question, identifying the assumption is the key. Here, the skeptics assume that the dogs usual odd behaviour is similar or comparable to the their behaviour just before an earthquake. Hence, E is the answer. Choice D is irrelevant to evaluate the given position.

There is a widespread belief that people can predict impending earthquakes from unusual animal behavior. Skeptics claim that this belief is based on selective coincidence: people whose dogs behaved oddly just before an earthquake will be especially likely to remember that fact. At any given time, the skeptics say, some of the world’s dogs will be behaving oddly.

The skeptics' position is that the belief that animal behavior can indicate an impending earthquake is erroneously based on selective coincidence: people are just more likely to remember their dogs' behavior if it happened right before an earthquake.

Well, okay, but is that behavior connected with earthquakes or not? In other words, is the dog behavior just the same old stuff the dogs would be doing normally, or is it something they only do when an earthquake is on its way?

Clarification of which one of the following issues would be most important to an evaluation of the skeptics’ position?

(A) Which is larger, the number of skeptics or the number of people who believe that animal behavior can foreshadow earthquakes? -- Out of scope

(B) Are there means other than the observation of animal behavior that non-scientists can use to predict earthquakes? -- Out of scope

(C) Are there animals about whose behavior people know too little to be able to distinguish unusual from everyday behavior? --doesn't help us evaluate the skeptics' position. Why? Because even if the answer is "yes," that still doesn't mean that there are no animals whose behavior we can accurately judge. In other words, maybe we can't distinguish unusual marmoset behavior from everyday marmoset behavior, but we can still distinguish normal and unusual dog behavior.

(D) Are the sorts of behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes as pronounced in dogs as they are in other animals? -- Whether or not unusual behavior in more pronounced in other animals, the issue of selective memory remains. (D) can't be correct.


(E) Is the animal behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes specific to impending earthquakes or can it be any kind of unusual behavior? -- Correct

Answer E

Does "the animal behavior" here refer to this sentence " At any given time, the skeptics say, some of the world’s dogs will be behaving oddly"?

and can anyone please help to rewording choice E it sounds kinda wordy to me and I don't fully understand it.
Many many thanks

Choice (E) refers to the "unusual animal behavior" that people notice before earthquakes. In other words, is there certain unusual behavior that the animals display ONLY before earthquakes?

• For example, dogs certainly do plenty of odd things: chase their own tails, do back-flips, lie down in funny positions, etc.
• As the skeptics point out, at any given time, some dogs in the world will be doing something odd.
• So whenever there is an earthquake, there were likely dogs doing odd things just before the earthquake.
• Thus, the odd behavior is probably just a coincidence and has nothing to do with the earthquakes.

But what if there is a specific odd behavior that dogs ONLY do before an earthquake?

• For example, what if just before an earthquake, dogs tend to stand up on their hind legs and pace back and forth nervously?
• This is something that dogs ONLY do before an earthquake.
• In that case, the odd pacing behavior would be specific to impending earthquakes.

So choice (E) says, "Is there a SPECIFIC kind of odd behavior that animals display before earthquakes (i.e. pacing back and forth) or can it be ANY kind of odd behavior (i.e. chasing tails, doing backflips, etc)?"

• If it's just ANY kind of odd behavior, then the skeptics are probably right.
• If animals display SPECIFIC odd behavior prior to an earthquake, then the skeptics' position is probably flawed.

I hope that helps!

Thank you so much GMATNinja. You always give me the best answer as soon as you could :D

Lol, I feel like I'm usually incredibly slow to respond to everything these days! Glad that we could be helpful with this one quickly, though.

Sorry to ask you about questions other than discussed topic.

I really miss those Wednesday live sessions. I have learnt many tricks from them. Please continue doing those videos.

No worries at all, and thank you for the kind words! Glad to hear that the videos have been useful.

Live YouTube videos will be back in February, and they'll include a mix of quant, verbal, and general strategies this time around. We'll have an announcement about the next video series, most likely later this week. (Feel free to hit the "follow" button on the left side of one of my posts to make sure that you don't miss the announcement.)

Stay tuned!

No worries at all, and thank you for the kind words! Glad to hear that the videos have been useful.

Live YouTube videos will be back in February, and they'll include a mix of quant, verbal, and general strategies this time around. We'll have an announcement about the next video series, most likely later this week. (Feel free to hit the "follow" button on the left side of one of my posts to make sure that you don't miss the announcement.)

Stay tuned![/quote]
Thank you very much

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

There is a widespread belief that people can predict impending earthquakes from unusual animal behavior. Skeptics claim that this belief is based on selective coincidence: people whose dogs behaved oddly just before an earthquake will be especially likely to remember that fact. At any given time, the skeptics say, some of the world’s dogs will be behaving oddly.

Clarification of which one of the following issues would be most important to an evaluation of the skeptics’ position?


(A) Which is larger, the number of skeptics or the number of people who believe that animal behavior can foreshadow earthquakes?
-irrelevant

(B) Are there means other than the observation of animal behavior that non-scientists can use to predict earthquakes?
-irrelevant

(C) Are there animals about whose behavior people know too little to be able to distinguish unusual from everyday behavior?
-irrelevant

(D) Are the sorts of behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes as pronounced in dogs as they are in other animals?
-irrelevant comparison

(E) Is the animal behavior supposedly predictive of earthquakes specific to impending earthquakes or can it be any kind of unusual behavior? CORRECT
-Let's say it's specific ---> weakens the skeptics position
-Let's say it's not specific ---> strengthens the skeptics position

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.