Critical Reasoning

Q: Extinction is a process that can depend on a variety of ecological, geographical, and physiological variables. These variables affect different species of organisms in different ways, and should, therefore, yield a random pattern of extinctions. However, the fossil record shows that extinction occurs in a surprisingly definite pattern, with many species vanishing at the same time.

Which of the following, if true, forms the best basis for at least a partial explanation of the patterned extinctions revealed by the fossil record?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Folks, i am trying to separate premises(P1,P2) and conclusion(C).

P1: Extinction depends on Eco,Geo & phys variables.
P2: P1 affects different organisms in different ways.

C: P1 & P2 leads to Random pattern of extinctions.

Counter Premise: fossil records show extinction in definite pattern

At this point after reading question stem i assume the above question as weaken conclusion type?

Did i arrived at the correct conclusion??
Pls. clarify..Should i just focus on question stem or do i need to focus on conclusion?

To me it seems a paradox question. But the answer has to have a negative explanation instead of a positive one.Paradox questions often miss the link which we can observe here.

So the question is combination of the following,

1- Paradox question
2- Odd-one out.

This one is definitely a paradox question.

No weaken question, or strengthen for that matter will ever ask you to form an "explanation" the only thing that needs to be explained is a paradox.

With a paradox question there is no conclusion. There are two sides to the paradox. One side will not require much explanation (or else the argument will give you the basis for that explanation.

The other side of the paradox will not yet be explained - often the question stem will mention that this is what needs to be explained.

The two sides are usually separated by a transition word, in this case the word "however" is used.

The first part of the paradox - the part that is already explained in the argument leads to the idea that there should be "a random pattern of extinctions."

The part of the paradox that needs to be explained is the fact that the fossil record yields a "surprisingly definite pattern of extinctions." The question stem also mentions the second part as the part that needs to be explained. The correct answer will give a reason why the pattern of extinctions is definite and not random.

Hope that helps

Thanks David. Excellent explanation and now i know what paradox means. I reread the paradox pattern in the CR book i have.