The right answer is D. This is a structure based CR question, which means that we need NOT actually care whether the argument is valid or not. All we need to understand is what role Susan's point plays. In this case, she counters Tim by providing an alternative explanation for the cautious behaviour.

Option A - "makes apparent" suggests that Susan has successfully refuted Tim's argument, which is not the case, and also something we don't need to care about. She's merely providing an alternative explanation. OUT

Option B - This is actually the opposite of what Tim has argued. He's actually saying that just because an event happened before it DOESN'T mean that it will happen again. Hence, this gets the structure of the argument grossly wrong. OUT

Option C - Susan doesn't do this. If it were so, she would directly address what he said rather than provide a different line of reasoning. OUT

Option D - "presents an alternate basis" does the job perfectly. It demonstrates that Susan is simply providing a different line of reasoning, which is what she does in the argument. This works fine and is therefore CORRECT.

Option E - She disputes that the belief itself is unfounded with her alternate explanation, not the meaning of the term . OUT

- Matoo from CrackVerbal
_________________

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

How’d you do? The question asks you to characterize the argument and is, therefore, a reasoning question—it’s more concerned with structure than content. As you break it down, take note of the way Susan fails to address Tim’s premise, but instead introduces her own reasoning. In this case, Tim describes behavior in response to a tragedy, and dismisses it as “unfounded” based on his lottery analogy. Susan provides an alternate explanation for people’s behavior. As you use Process of Elimination, ask yourself, “Did they do that?” as a way of testing each answer choice.

Here we go:

(A) No. Neither of them discusses the effect of tragedy on its survivors. Eliminate it.

(B) No. Susan does not even address Tim’s assumption about the frequency or likelihood of the recurrence of such an event in the future. Eliminate it.

(C) No. Susan does not speak about Tim’s analogy. Eliminate it.

(D) Yes. Susan presents another explanation for the behavior pointed out by Tim—that people are more likely to trust their instincts and possibly avert misfortune.

(E) No. There is no such dispute in Susan’s argument. Eliminate it
_________________