clearly D. Look at the bold part : wheat crop probably fell prey to ergot fungus. It might be possible that the crop might get prey to fungus or might not.

akhp77 wrote:Problem is in Image




OA: D


Please explain

yes its D. it took me minutes to answer this question. it seems that akp77 like doing touch CR in kaplan book. i am so scared of doing those questions in kaplan because they ask us to pay attention word to word

But what leads to option D. I have not seen proper explanation from both of you. I reveal OA in beginning because I need explanation.

I believe that
probable occurrence = unusual rain fall and wheat crops are eaten by fungus.
Actual occurrence = wiping out population by murderer and self destruction

I am not sure.

akhp77 wrote:But what leads to option D. I have not seen proper explanation from both of you. I reveal OA in beginning because I need explanation.

I believe that
probable occurrence = unusual rain fall and wheat crops are eaten by fungus.
Actual occurrence = wiping out population by murderer and self destruction

I am not sure.

oh i thought gsinghal explaination was so clearly?
the problem is about the key " probably"
it says that MAYBE/PROBABLY the crop which fell prey to fungus cause dangerous psycho... ( kill people and themself) after people ate that crop.
probably/maybe is something which could happen and which couldnt. there is no sure for what the author in the argument convinced

akhp77 wrote:Problem is in Image




OA: D


Please explain

All we are offered in terms of evidence is that a wave of violence coincided with weather conditions that probably fostered the growth of a fungus that can lead to a disease that causes people to experience hallucinations and other psychological problems. Thus the hypothesis is plausible but by no means should be regarded as conclusively supported, as we do not know for a fact that the fungus actually appeared.

You probably know by now not to confuse 'correlation' with 'causation', The evidence provided doesn't even qualify as a 'correlation': I would call it a likely correlation, and its status should make you even more skeptical that you are when you are offered a causation argument that includes a factual correlation.

I am still unable to select OA.

Actually, I am confused with the terms probable and actual occurrence.

@kevin: awesome explanation!
___________

@akhp77: in short, (the growth of a fungus leading to) ergotism PROBABLY occured. The major flaw in the author's reasoning is that he assumes it ACTUALLY occured.

You say you are unable to select OA, but please tell us: what choice are you selecting over the OA? Perhaps, then, we can give you a better explanation.

This is a Very tough question, and not the best as far as I am concerned. But If something probably fell prey and that CAN cause a disease you cannot say that it was the cause, although it may well be - you can't draw an absolute fact from a probable event and that is what they are doing here.

kevincanspain wrote:

akhp77 wrote:Problem is in Image




OA: D


Please explain

All we are offered in terms of evidence is that a wave of violence coincided with weather conditions that probably fostered the growth of a fungus that can lead to a disease that causes people to experience hallucinations and other psychological problems. Thus the hypothesis is plausible but by no means should be regarded as conclusively supported, as we do not know for a fact that the fungus actually appeared.

You probably know by now not to confuse 'correlation' with 'causation', The evidence provided doesn't even qualify as a 'correlation': I would call it a likely correlation,

and its status should make you even more skeptical that you are when you are offered a causation argument that includes a factual correlation.

Kevin, will you pl. explain what exactly do you mean in the quoted portion? I understood most part of your explanation but not this......

Thanks to all.

Finally, I understood it.