annelena
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.