Critical Reasoning

A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.
Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?
(A) It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence.
(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.
(C) Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational.
(D) The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence.
(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event.

OA D

I had already committed to A because i liked the sound of "plausible supposition" that by the time I got to D i didn't read it carefully enough

Sorry, I still dont understand why A is not the answer. OE please

Is this a Kaplan Question? All CR's are driving me crazy....What is the problem with A?

I am down to A and D....and I choose A.....as usual I am wrong (99% I am wrong whenever I close down to 2 out of 5. I don't know what to do)

Komal - Could you please post OE?

reply2spg wrote:Is this a Kaplan Question? All CR's are driving me crazy....What is the problem with A?

I am down to A and D....and I choose A.....as usual I am wrong (99% I am wrong whenever I close down to 2 out of 5. I don't know what to do)

Komal - Could you please post OE?

Here's the OE.. source is kaplan 800

This passage tells a story similar to the anonymous fable of the poison grain, in which all of a kingdom's grain crop is mysteriously poisoned, causing anyone who ate it to go insane. The author describes a wave of unusual violence that swept over a medieval town for a period of five years, characterized by acts ranging from self-destruction to murder. That's followed by a description of a chain of events, beginning with an unusual shift in weather patterns that coincided with the violent period. Due to unusually heavy rainfall, the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus, which can cause ergotism, a disease characterized by hallucinations and other psychological abnormalities. The author then concludes that the violence was caused by ("was the result of") the freakish weather conditions. There's the element of causation alluded to above.

When presented with a causal argument-especially when looking for a rebuttal that argument- the first thing to do is check to see that the causal mechanism described is appropriate. The author blames the unusual acts of violence in the town on ergot fungus. However, he doesn't know for a fact that the ergot fungus was present in the town's wheat. He knows conditions were ripe for the formation of the fungus (i.e., lots of rain), and he knows fungus-infected wheat can cause psychological disturbances-but the crucial point, the actual presence of the fungus, is mere supposition. (Note how the author says that the wheat crop "probably" fell prey to the fungus.) As (D) points out, the conclusion treats the probable occurrence of the fungus as if it were a certain, actual occurrence. And therein lies the scope shift as well; the author argues from probability in the evidence to a clear-cut, definite statement of actual causation in the conclusion. In arguing against this reasoning, it would be perfectly appropriate to point out that the author misses the distinction described in (D), the correct answer.

A wave of incidents of unusual violence, from murder to acts of self-destruction, plagued the small medieval town for a period of five years, nearly wiping out the population. At the same time, there was an unusual shift in the area's weather pattern. Rainfall was so heavy and continuous that the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus. When eaten, grain thus affected can cause ergotism, a disease associated with hallucinations and other disturbing psychological side effects. In the end we can conclude that the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions.
Which of the following is the most effective rebuttal to the contention made above?
(A) It is based upon a series of plausible suppositions rather than upon contemporary evidence. x because contemporary=at the same time
(B) No clear distinction is drawn between cause and effect.x cause=ergotism effect =violence clear distinction
(C) Explanations of historical events cannot be convincing when too great a role is assigned to chance or the irrational. x out of scope chance not discussed
(D) The author makes no distinction between probable occurrence and actual occurrence. true there is a possibility it may be due to disease may be not(E) Such crucial terms as "unusual violence" are not adequately defined in regard to the specific historical event. x out of scope as fact remains there was violence and we need cause

Then what is wrong with A? Ergotism may cause psychological side effects....however it is not certain and as per the stimuli there is no evidence of the same....so how can author conclude that 'the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions'

komal wrote:

reply2spg wrote:Is this a Kaplan Question? All CR's are driving me crazy....What is the problem with A?

I am down to A and D....and I choose A.....as usual I am wrong (99% I am wrong whenever I close down to 2 out of 5. I don't know what to do)

Komal - Could you please post OE?

Here's the OE.. source is kaplan 800

This passage tells a story similar to the anonymous fable of the poison grain, in which all of a kingdom's grain crop is mysteriously poisoned, causing anyone who ate it to go insane. The author describes a wave of unusual violence that swept over a medieval town for a period of five years, characterized by acts ranging from self-destruction to murder. That's followed by a description of a chain of events, beginning with an unusual shift in weather patterns that coincided with the violent period. Due to unusually heavy rainfall, the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus, which can cause ergotism, a disease characterized by hallucinations and other psychological abnormalities. The author then concludes that the violence was caused by ("was the result of") the freakish weather conditions. There's the element of causation alluded to above.

When presented with a causal argument-especially when looking for a rebuttal that argument- the first thing to do is check to see that the causal mechanism described is appropriate. The author blames the unusual acts of violence in the town on ergot fungus. However, he doesn't know for a fact that the ergot fungus was present in the town's wheat. He knows conditions were ripe for the formation of the fungus (i.e., lots of rain), and he knows fungus-infected wheat can cause psychological disturbances-but the crucial point, the actual presence of the fungus, is mere supposition. (Note how the author says that the wheat crop "probably" fell prey to the fungus.) As (D) points out, the conclusion treats the probable occurrence of the fungus as if it were a certain, actual occurrence. And therein lies the scope shift as well; the author argues from probability in the evidence to a clear-cut, definite statement of actual causation in the conclusion. In arguing against this reasoning, it would be perfectly appropriate to point out that the author misses the distinction described in (D), the correct answer.

reply2spg wrote:Then what is wrong with A? Ergotism may cause psychological side effects....however it is not certain and as per the stimuli there is no evidence of the same....so how can author conclude that 'the violence was the result of freakish weather conditions'

komal wrote:

reply2spg wrote:Is this a Kaplan Question? All CR's are driving me crazy....What is the problem with A?

I am down to A and D....and I choose A.....as usual I am wrong (99% I am wrong whenever I close down to 2 out of 5. I don't know what to do)

Komal - Could you please post OE?

Here's the OE.. source is kaplan 800

This passage tells a story similar to the anonymous fable of the poison grain, in which all of a kingdom's grain crop is mysteriously poisoned, causing anyone who ate it to go insane. The author describes a wave of unusual violence that swept over a medieval town for a period of five years, characterized by acts ranging from self-destruction to murder. That's followed by a description of a chain of events, beginning with an unusual shift in weather patterns that coincided with the violent period. Due to unusually heavy rainfall, the wheat crop probably fell prey to the ergot fungus, which can cause ergotism, a disease characterized by hallucinations and other psychological abnormalities. The author then concludes that the violence was caused by ("was the result of") the freakish weather conditions. There's the element of causation alluded to above.

When presented with a causal argument-especially when looking for a rebuttal that argument- the first thing to do is check to see that the causal mechanism described is appropriate. The author blames the unusual acts of violence in the town on ergot fungus. However, he doesn't know for a fact that the ergot fungus was present in the town's wheat. He knows conditions were ripe for the formation of the fungus (i.e., lots of rain), and he knows fungus-infected wheat can cause psychological disturbances-but the crucial point, the actual presence of the fungus, is mere supposition. (Note how the author says that the wheat crop "probably" fell prey to the fungus.) As (D) points out, the conclusion treats the probable occurrence of the fungus as if it were a certain, actual occurrence. And therein lies the scope shift as well; the author argues from probability in the evidence to a clear-cut, definite statement of actual causation in the conclusion. In arguing against this reasoning, it would be perfectly appropriate to point out that the author misses the distinction described in (D), the correct answer.

A is only half right, because the argument did rely on both suppositions and contemporary evidence. The evidence was that there was indeed heavy raining. The suppositions were that the conditions were ripe for ergot fungus and that eating infected rye can cause the disease.

The more I think about it, the more I see why C) is the answer. The argument took probable occurrences (i.e. fungus -> ergotism) as the definitive cause of the violence that took place.